"ONCE IN A WHILE WE SHOULD ASK ourselves several questions in order to guide our actions. We should ask questions like: Do I know the poor? Do I know, in the first place, the poor in my family, those who are closest to me - people who are poor but not because they lack bread?
There are other types of poverty just as painful because they are more intrinsic.
Perhaps what my husband or wife lacks, what my children lack, what my parents lack is not clothes or food. Perhaps they lack love because I do not give it to them!" - Mother Teresa
Lord, please help me to be more loving, have more compassion, be full of mercy, and be humble always so that I can put others first.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Sunday, August 28, 2005
The Greatest Suffering
"There is much suffering in the world - very much. And this material suffering is suffering from hunger, suffering from homelessness, from all kinds of diseases, but I still think the greatest suffering is being lonely, feeling unloved, just having no one." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
"The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy," she said, "it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, dispair, and hopelessness is love. There are many people in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty - it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There's a hunger for love as there is a hunger for God." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
It is easy to love from a distance... It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve loneliness and the pain of being unloved. It is easier, from a distance, to tell the lonely and the unloved that you will pray for them than it is to get close and truly love. - Me
Instead of simply praying for the unloved and the lonely we should also, and more importantly, pray for ourselves, that we may know the love of the Father. We cannot possibly love unless we have love to offer. God is love. The lonely and unloved need to also pray to God, the Father, but first they need to experience the loving hands of God.
The Church is the mystical body of Christ. We are His hands and his feet. We are the practical expression of love to a lonely and unloved world. Jesus is the lover of our souls, but he is also the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, the orphans, widows, oppressed, and lonely.
"The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy," she said, "it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, dispair, and hopelessness is love. There are many people in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty - it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There's a hunger for love as there is a hunger for God." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
It is easy to love from a distance... It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve loneliness and the pain of being unloved. It is easier, from a distance, to tell the lonely and the unloved that you will pray for them than it is to get close and truly love. - Me
Instead of simply praying for the unloved and the lonely we should also, and more importantly, pray for ourselves, that we may know the love of the Father. We cannot possibly love unless we have love to offer. God is love. The lonely and unloved need to also pray to God, the Father, but first they need to experience the loving hands of God.
The Church is the mystical body of Christ. We are His hands and his feet. We are the practical expression of love to a lonely and unloved world. Jesus is the lover of our souls, but he is also the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, the orphans, widows, oppressed, and lonely.
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' - Matthew 25:37-45
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' - Matthew 25:37-45
"LOVE TO BE TRUE HAS TO BEGIN WITH GOD in prayer. If we pray, we will be able to love, and if we love, we will be able to serve... YOU AND I HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR greater things. We have not been created to just pass through this life without aim. And that greater aim is to love and be loved." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Come on Church! Lets get on our knees before God and pray. Then lets get up off our knees and love this lonely world.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez
Hard to believe I am posting with these two names in the same title. But thanks to good ol' Pat Robertson, here we are. Pat Robertson recently said the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez (dictator President in Venezuela) to save money avoiding a war... *blinks my eyes*
riiiiight, well actually I think Pat has a point. The world should not have dictators and semi-powerful thugs named Hugo. That is so pathetic! How can we allow anyone named Hugo to go around intimidating anyone? Think about it! His mom probably called him Hugi or maybe Huey, or possibly Hugogo. You know how humiliating it would be to have Hugi running things down in South America? It's so bad I bet that if the U.S. doesn't assassinate him the Columbian cartel will. There's no way we can have respect in the world if we allow Huey to go around pushing other countries around. Hugo.... it just doesn't have the same ring as Saddam, Osama, and Mohamar. So lets give Pat some credit. He understands the fine subtleties of power and politics.
But on a more serious note, this is not at all surprising to me that the rarely consistent Pat Robertson is out saying stupid things that make all Christians look hateful, unreasonable and unintelligent.
I remember when Pat Robertson announced that satanist rock stars (all rock stars are satanist) and youth culture in general were our greatest threat. Then it was the new-age movement, secular humanism, evolutionists, muslims, liberals, and now Hugo Chavez. I'm not saying that any of these things are necessarily good, but I don't see them as any real threat to the King of Kings and his people.
He is on the same level with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore in terms of ridiculous conspiracy paranoia. Where does Pat get this stuff? It seems he must have read the "Gospel of Jerry Falwell", where it says, "Demonize your enemies." Pat isn't my enemy and I'm not demonizing him here. I'm just pointing out that he goes out of his way to say incredible and inflammatory absurdities with which far too many funamentalists tend to agree.
And so much for being pro-life. I realize the two issues are not the same, but I don't think anyone who is seriously pro-life would ever just flippantly advocate such extreme measures for someone who poses no real threat to the U.S.
Granted, Hugi isn't such a great leader for Venezuela, but there are too many world leaders who make bad decisions who maybe shouldn't be in office. But is it Pat Robertson's role to make those decisions? Do we really need to be, in the 21st century, running back to the ways of the Crusaders, with calls from the clergy to "kill the infadels"? What ever happened to "go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation?"
I can't remember the last time I've heard good news from good ol' Pat.
riiiiight, well actually I think Pat has a point. The world should not have dictators and semi-powerful thugs named Hugo. That is so pathetic! How can we allow anyone named Hugo to go around intimidating anyone? Think about it! His mom probably called him Hugi or maybe Huey, or possibly Hugogo. You know how humiliating it would be to have Hugi running things down in South America? It's so bad I bet that if the U.S. doesn't assassinate him the Columbian cartel will. There's no way we can have respect in the world if we allow Huey to go around pushing other countries around. Hugo.... it just doesn't have the same ring as Saddam, Osama, and Mohamar. So lets give Pat some credit. He understands the fine subtleties of power and politics.
But on a more serious note, this is not at all surprising to me that the rarely consistent Pat Robertson is out saying stupid things that make all Christians look hateful, unreasonable and unintelligent.
I remember when Pat Robertson announced that satanist rock stars (all rock stars are satanist) and youth culture in general were our greatest threat. Then it was the new-age movement, secular humanism, evolutionists, muslims, liberals, and now Hugo Chavez. I'm not saying that any of these things are necessarily good, but I don't see them as any real threat to the King of Kings and his people.
He is on the same level with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore in terms of ridiculous conspiracy paranoia. Where does Pat get this stuff? It seems he must have read the "Gospel of Jerry Falwell", where it says, "Demonize your enemies." Pat isn't my enemy and I'm not demonizing him here. I'm just pointing out that he goes out of his way to say incredible and inflammatory absurdities with which far too many funamentalists tend to agree.
And so much for being pro-life. I realize the two issues are not the same, but I don't think anyone who is seriously pro-life would ever just flippantly advocate such extreme measures for someone who poses no real threat to the U.S.
Granted, Hugi isn't such a great leader for Venezuela, but there are too many world leaders who make bad decisions who maybe shouldn't be in office. But is it Pat Robertson's role to make those decisions? Do we really need to be, in the 21st century, running back to the ways of the Crusaders, with calls from the clergy to "kill the infadels"? What ever happened to "go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation?"
I can't remember the last time I've heard good news from good ol' Pat.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Work, work, and Pilgrimage
I worked hard today getting ready for school to start back up. Now that I am a homeroom teacher as well as a P.E. teacher I actually have a classroom to get ready in addition to the gym's equipment room. I helped move the teacher who previously had my room into his new room. He had a lot of stuff.
I have to do a ton of work to be ready for the first day of school next Tuesday. Tomorrow I won't be going in because I am going to look at a possible replacement camp for Pine Hills. I really hope the camp will work for us.
I heard the Pistons got Dale Davis. WOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!! (sarcasm). Ok, so he will be the new Elden Campbell. Looks like Michael Finley will sign with the Heat. And it looks like the Pistons will not get that badly needed scorer. This is going to be an interesting year.
Nothing can give us a profound sense of the meaning of our earthly life and stimulate us to live it as a brief experimental state - as can an inner attitude of seeing ourselves as pilgrims. - John Paul II (The Great)
I very much see myself as a pilgrim on a journey toward God. I am in the wilderness of this world and this age, struggling to get through each day, struggling to find meaning in this wilderness. Sometimes I search for "food" and "water" and find that which is not truly satisfying. Lately I've been seeing the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion as very much like the manna and the water that flowed from a rock, in which God provided for the Israelites as they wandered the desert in their search for the Promised Land that would eventually house The City of God. As I wander through this wilderness, learning that God's provisions are life-giving, and assist me in my journey toward Him, I see that little by little, my attractions to the things of this world (that are not life-giving) are fading away.
It can be quite wearying to wander in this world. One can easily lose focus and purpose. I am finding my purpose in the One who created me, Abba, Father. I guess I am getting a clearer picture of God and my journey toward Him. Knowing that He is attainable; I will see God brings a new joy to the pilgrimage.
It has been very easy to forget that I am on a journey that will either lead me to God or away from Him. When my life is about me I tend to lose my way. When I live life on my own terms, for my own desires, and believing in myself to accomplish what I am doing, I am lost. I've found myself stuck in many traps along the way. I've stumbled and fallen countless times when I've taken my eyes off of the Good Shepherd. I've encountered great and savage beasts that seek to devour lost pilgrims who have wandered away from the protection of the other pilgrims to seek a treasure on my own.
What is your life about? What or to whom are you journeying toward? Where do you go to find life when you're feeling empty, tired, bored, restless, lonely, unloved, and homesick ( for Heaven)? Many turn to various distractions, pleasures, people, and thrills to fill the empty voids that can only truly be filled by the One who died on a cross out of love for you.
He eagerly awaits our return to the journey toward Him. I've turned back to Him many, many times as I've strayed from Him. He is not the angry God that we've made Him out to be. He is not like us. He does not hold grudges. He is not vindictive. He is not resentful. All I've ever experienced from God is His love, His kindness, His mercy, and His guidance.
I have to do a ton of work to be ready for the first day of school next Tuesday. Tomorrow I won't be going in because I am going to look at a possible replacement camp for Pine Hills. I really hope the camp will work for us.
I heard the Pistons got Dale Davis. WOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!! (sarcasm). Ok, so he will be the new Elden Campbell. Looks like Michael Finley will sign with the Heat. And it looks like the Pistons will not get that badly needed scorer. This is going to be an interesting year.
Nothing can give us a profound sense of the meaning of our earthly life and stimulate us to live it as a brief experimental state - as can an inner attitude of seeing ourselves as pilgrims. - John Paul II (The Great)
I very much see myself as a pilgrim on a journey toward God. I am in the wilderness of this world and this age, struggling to get through each day, struggling to find meaning in this wilderness. Sometimes I search for "food" and "water" and find that which is not truly satisfying. Lately I've been seeing the body and blood of Christ in Holy Communion as very much like the manna and the water that flowed from a rock, in which God provided for the Israelites as they wandered the desert in their search for the Promised Land that would eventually house The City of God. As I wander through this wilderness, learning that God's provisions are life-giving, and assist me in my journey toward Him, I see that little by little, my attractions to the things of this world (that are not life-giving) are fading away.
It can be quite wearying to wander in this world. One can easily lose focus and purpose. I am finding my purpose in the One who created me, Abba, Father. I guess I am getting a clearer picture of God and my journey toward Him. Knowing that He is attainable; I will see God brings a new joy to the pilgrimage.
It has been very easy to forget that I am on a journey that will either lead me to God or away from Him. When my life is about me I tend to lose my way. When I live life on my own terms, for my own desires, and believing in myself to accomplish what I am doing, I am lost. I've found myself stuck in many traps along the way. I've stumbled and fallen countless times when I've taken my eyes off of the Good Shepherd. I've encountered great and savage beasts that seek to devour lost pilgrims who have wandered away from the protection of the other pilgrims to seek a treasure on my own.
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."
- Matthew 16:25
What is your life about? What or to whom are you journeying toward? Where do you go to find life when you're feeling empty, tired, bored, restless, lonely, unloved, and homesick ( for Heaven)? Many turn to various distractions, pleasures, people, and thrills to fill the empty voids that can only truly be filled by the One who died on a cross out of love for you.
He eagerly awaits our return to the journey toward Him. I've turned back to Him many, many times as I've strayed from Him. He is not the angry God that we've made Him out to be. He is not like us. He does not hold grudges. He is not vindictive. He is not resentful. All I've ever experienced from God is His love, His kindness, His mercy, and His guidance.
"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."
- Luke 15:7
Join me on the pilgrimage to the New City of God, the New Jerusalem. When Jesus died and rose again, he ascended into Heaven, where he told his followers he would go to prepare a place for them. He promised to return again, to take those who love God to Heaven. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is coming! We don't know the day, nor the hour of Christ's return, but He is coming. Glory to God in the Highest. Amen!
Saturday, August 20, 2005
I Want to Be the Biggest Fool I Can Be
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
1 Cor 3:18
God can often be found in the smallest things, and sometimes nowhere near the big things. The lunch with a friend, playing basketball with some kids, going for a walk, a moment of quiet, have all proven to be where God is often found. There's this group of former students that I tend to hang out with somewhat regularly. I don't always see why God connected me with them but they are a big source of joy for me because looking back I can see that the simple things, the trips to digital ops to play counterstrike, the ribs for dinner, the pizza, the disc golf, have all been small things where God has worked. I think the parents of these guys have mixed feelings about all of this. On the one hand, one guy's mom gets it I think and understands that God often works in these small things. On the other hand, this other guy's mom doesn't seem to get it at all and probably wonders why its so important for her son to go out for lunches, ribs, etc. I've been feeling kinda down about it partly because of an unrelated person misunderstanding me. But I was listening to a song tonight and was reminded why I gave up so much to "be there" for whomever I can be there for. I've decided that I don't care if people understand me, or approve of what I do because I am good at what I do and I love "my kids."
Youth programs don't really work unless there's relationship with the kids you are trying to reach. They need to know that they are cared for, accepted, loved, and part of something. It is a joke to simply put on a highly polished youth program with lots of "good speakers" and retreats without first building relationships. And when many of these so-called good speakers have no idea what kids are really like try to guilt-trip them into a decision to give up this sin or that sin, rather than experiencing the love and mercy of Jesus it makes me angry.
I want to be the kind of fool that nobody understands, but in fact, is doing the will of God. I want to be the kind of fool who sees Jesus in taking a group of kids out to play counterstrike at a gaming center. I want to be the kind of fool who sees Jesus in a kid who has no idea that he or she is priceless. I want to be the kind of fool who treats others with love and kindess while everyone else is being rude and cold and unfriendly. I don't want to be "better" than anyone. I don't want to be "holier than thou." I just want to be a fool who fell in love with Jesus and spends the rest of eternity following him. Because I know how sinful and filthy my heart gets, and I am in love with my Savior who loved me enough to pay the price for my sinfulness. And I'm so sorry for ever trying to live life on my own terms, my own way, apart from God.
Only a Fool
by Geoff Moore and the Distance
Charlie Was A Fool
Did You Hear What He Went And Did?
He Quit His Job, Threw It Away
Gave His Life To A Bunch Of Kids
He Said He Was In Love With Jesus
But His Friends Didn't Understand
He Could've Had It All
But He Just Smiled And Said
That He Already Did.
He Saw The Big In The Small
He Saw The Beauty In The Call
Even When No One Else Approved
He Took The Job Only A Fool Would Do.
Show Me The Big In The Small
Show Me The Beauty In The Call
Show Me The Road That I Should Choose
I'll Take The Job Only A Fool Could Do.
Show Me The Big In The Small
Show Me The Wonder Of My Call
Even When No One Else Approves
I'll Take The Job For Only A Fool
Only A Fool, Only A Fool.
Friday, August 19, 2005
On a Lighter Note...
There was an article in the Detroit Free Press (online) a few weeks ago about the Pistons considering a trade with Minnesota to acquire Keven Garnett. The article said the Twolves wanted Rasheed and Ben Wallace for KG. Wow, I am so glad that Joe Dumars (Pistons President) did not pull the trigger on that rediculous trade. There's no doubt in my mind that KG would be SWEET to have in Detroit, but you can't give up Big Ben! He's the heart of the team, a very tough defender, and one of the best rebounders. Its incredibly hard to find such a hard working, unselfish player. When you get one as amazing as Ben Wallace you gotta hold on to him!
Don't get me wrong, I love Sheed too. He brought some attitude that the Pistons lacked, and I think at times, he's one of the most unstoppable players in the NBA. I would be sad to see him go, but you gotta hold on to Ben because he brings the defense and rebounding. KG would bring more consistent scoring than Sheed, and much fewer technical fouls. When the Pistons face the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals, they would be much better off guarding the likes of Shaq with Big Ben and KG down low.
Additionally, the Freep claimed the Pistons are considering a move to get a free agent - either Jalen Rose or Michael Finley. I'm all about Michael Finley here unless he wants a rediculous salary. I think he's a more selfless player than Jalen Rose and will fit in better with the Pistons. The Miami Heat are also trying to get him. It would not be a good thing for Detroit if Michael Finley is in Miami next season.
Wow, imagine a starting five of Chauncy Billups, RIP Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Kevin Garnett, and Ben Wallace with Michael Finley and Antonio McDyess coming off the bench? I also suspect that Carlos Delfino will be much better next season if he sticks around. Alan Houston has been mentioned as a possible free agent acquisition for the Pistons.
Then there's Lindsey Hunter. Lindsey Hunter impressed me this year with his defense. I think he is one of the more underrated defenders in basketball.
Since I brought up Shaq, does anyone else agree that Shaq is the worst skilled MVP in the history of basketball? While I consider him the most dominant player in the NBA, I don't think he is a good basketball player at all. He has no skill! All he has is size. If any one of my eighth grade basketball players were his size they would be 100 times better than he is. All of my kids can shoot free throws significantly better than Shaq. They play team ball better than Shaq. They defend way better than Shaq (move their feet, cover their guys, play hard), they are in much better shape than Shaq, and they have much smaller egos than Shaq. If Shaq would actually work hard at his game I'd respect him. He has so much potential and just throws it away because he doesn't have to work hard to dominate. How sad is that? I'll take Ben Wallace over Shaq any day. I'd rather watch a hard working over-achiever over a huge, lazy underachiever anyday. When I watch Shaq play basketball it bores me. He looks bored when he plays. I've never seen him play with passion. When was the last time Shaq dove for a loose ball or out-hustled someone? When was the last time he ran all out to get back on defense without needing oxygen?
Would I take Shaq on the Pistons if I was the President of the Pistons? Heck no! It was so much better watching "Superman" get knocked down to size a year ago than it would be to cruise through the playoffs on Shaq's back. While he is a superstar, I absolutely do not believe he is even close to being on the same level as the superstars that worked so hard to made the NBA what it is today - Dr. J, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isaiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan.
Don't get me wrong, I love Sheed too. He brought some attitude that the Pistons lacked, and I think at times, he's one of the most unstoppable players in the NBA. I would be sad to see him go, but you gotta hold on to Ben because he brings the defense and rebounding. KG would bring more consistent scoring than Sheed, and much fewer technical fouls. When the Pistons face the Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals, they would be much better off guarding the likes of Shaq with Big Ben and KG down low.
Additionally, the Freep claimed the Pistons are considering a move to get a free agent - either Jalen Rose or Michael Finley. I'm all about Michael Finley here unless he wants a rediculous salary. I think he's a more selfless player than Jalen Rose and will fit in better with the Pistons. The Miami Heat are also trying to get him. It would not be a good thing for Detroit if Michael Finley is in Miami next season.
Wow, imagine a starting five of Chauncy Billups, RIP Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Kevin Garnett, and Ben Wallace with Michael Finley and Antonio McDyess coming off the bench? I also suspect that Carlos Delfino will be much better next season if he sticks around. Alan Houston has been mentioned as a possible free agent acquisition for the Pistons.
Then there's Lindsey Hunter. Lindsey Hunter impressed me this year with his defense. I think he is one of the more underrated defenders in basketball.
Since I brought up Shaq, does anyone else agree that Shaq is the worst skilled MVP in the history of basketball? While I consider him the most dominant player in the NBA, I don't think he is a good basketball player at all. He has no skill! All he has is size. If any one of my eighth grade basketball players were his size they would be 100 times better than he is. All of my kids can shoot free throws significantly better than Shaq. They play team ball better than Shaq. They defend way better than Shaq (move their feet, cover their guys, play hard), they are in much better shape than Shaq, and they have much smaller egos than Shaq. If Shaq would actually work hard at his game I'd respect him. He has so much potential and just throws it away because he doesn't have to work hard to dominate. How sad is that? I'll take Ben Wallace over Shaq any day. I'd rather watch a hard working over-achiever over a huge, lazy underachiever anyday. When I watch Shaq play basketball it bores me. He looks bored when he plays. I've never seen him play with passion. When was the last time Shaq dove for a loose ball or out-hustled someone? When was the last time he ran all out to get back on defense without needing oxygen?
Would I take Shaq on the Pistons if I was the President of the Pistons? Heck no! It was so much better watching "Superman" get knocked down to size a year ago than it would be to cruise through the playoffs on Shaq's back. While he is a superstar, I absolutely do not believe he is even close to being on the same level as the superstars that worked so hard to made the NBA what it is today - Dr. J, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isaiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan.
Friday, August 12, 2005
More Thoughts On Humanae Vitae
This is going to be lengthy, sorry. Also, I am not an expert on church teaching, contraception, AIDS, and the pro-life movement. I am going to do my best to articulate my points of view on these questions, while doing my best to remain faithful to historical, traditional Christian teachings on these issues. I've taken many ideas and quotes from various websites and have cited many of them but to save time, have not cited every source. This is not intended to be a formal writing, but rather, a hodgepodge of ideas on this topic.
...this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.
this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."
Marriage is an institution, and a sacrament, given to us by God. It is because of God' s love that we have marriage. Marriage is a total giving of one' s self to another, in which everything is to be shared without selfishness. This total love brings a bond of unity between a married couple (between a man and a woman) unlike any other. Additionally, marriage is also about procreation since " children are the supreme gift of marriage. "
10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
Responsible parenthood is to embrace the gift of sexual union (in marriage) in its fullness. God wants us to " be fruitful and multiply. " It is part of the purpose of our sexuality. Again, it is natural law. God wants married couples to have children. Sometimes responsible parents decide, for what the church describes as " grave motives and with due respect for the moral law " to avoid having children. " Grave motives " do not include materialistic considerations (we will not be able to afford a yacht if we have another child) or personal preferences (I do not really want anymore children). " Grave motives " means that there must be serious reasons not to have more children. One couple elected to have only one child because the doctors discovered that their baby had so many birth defects. Their doctors and many friends and family counseled the couple to abort the baby. The couple chose to go ahead and have the baby and take care of it even though it would need constant care and attention. Their son required so much attention and care that they could not possibly care for another child.
So there are times when it is acceptable to avoid having children, but only in such a way that is in conformity with God's will and with the natural order in which He created us.
11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood.
13. It is in fact justly observed that a conjugal act imposed upon one's partner without regard for his or her condition and lawful desires is not a true act of love, and therefore denies an exigency of right moral order in the relationships between husband and wife. Likewise, if they consider the matter, they must admit that an act of mutual love, which is detrimental to the faculty of propagating life, which God the Creator of all, has implanted in it according to special laws, is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. On the other hand, to make use of the gift of conjugal love while respecting the laws of the generative process means to acknowledge oneself not to be the arbiter of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. "Human life is sacred," Pope John XXIII recalled; "from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.
God, in his wisdom, designed natural laws in such a way that there are natural rhythms of the potential reproductive capacity of a person. Sexual union amongst a married couple will not always result in the conception of a new person. This is fully acceptable to God since this is the way He designed us. But we are to always be mindful of natural law and of the Church' s teachings, that " each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. "
The two purposes of sex, then, are 1) an expression of love, intimacy and union between a married man and woman, and 2) procreation. This is not just arbitrary observations; these are part of natural law. This is the fullness of the gift of sexuality that God has given to us. God, in his wisdom, chose to give us the gift of sexuality as it is. Why would we only take half the gift? To take half of it is to abuse the giver of the gift, and also to abuse the gift itself. The way God made our bodies, and the way in which God instituted marriage as a covenant that should last a lifetime, and the way in which God intends the marriage union to be a union of total love - " by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. " We do not just choose one or the other of the essential aspects the sexual act between a husband and a wife. It comes as a total package, and is an offense to God to " tear apart " the gift that God, himself, gave to us, keeping only the part that we find convenient, useful, or wanted. " The conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination toward man' s most high calling to parenthood. "
A conjugal act imposed upon one' s partner is not an act of love, and is both contrary to the right moral order established by God, and is also an abuse of the gift of sexual union within a marriage in a way that it harms the relationship between a husband and wife. It is an abuse of one of the two purposes of sex. It is a perversion of the gift of sexual union. In the same way, an act of sexual union which is not open to the " faculty of propagating life " is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. " To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. "
14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.
16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
Here the teaching that it is not acceptable to use artificial birth control is re-stated. Furthermore, it does explain the proper means of preventing birth when, after a " grave motive " has been found, it is deemed that it is best to delay the birth of a new child. If done naturally, according to natural law, chastely, and with self-control, it is acceptable to abstain from sexual union during the times when the probability of conception is least. One may ask, well if a couple is allowed to do this, then what' s the big deal about using artificial means? The Church has always maintained, and still maintains, that artificial birth control is not acceptable. " There are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love. "
CHURCH TEACHING THROUGH THE CENTURIES
Contraception is barely mentioned in scripture. Abortion, euthanasia, and cloning are not mentioned either. Birth control has been around for a long, long time. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating as far back as 1900 B.C. describe ancient methods of birth control that were also practiced later in the Roman empire. They mentioned wools that absorb sperm, poisons that were used in the uterus, potions, and other methods used to prevent conception. Even condoms (made of animal skin rather than latex) were used.
The only reference of contraception that I am aware of in Scripture is when Onan, to avoid fulfilling his duty according to ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one ' s dead brother, knew that the offspring would not be his so when he went into his brother' s wife he spilled the seed on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. " And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also (Gen 38:8-10) "
The prescribed penalty for not giving your brother' s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut 25:7-10). Onan was killed for more than avoiding his duty as a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he broke natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. Just as the Bible need not detail every form of stealing and murder to show that stealing and murder of every kind, is wrong, it need not go into every form of birth control to show that they are wrong too. Contraception was so far outside the Jewish and Christian mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Once a moral issue is established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned.
The early church fathers knew it was wrong and taught from the beginning of Church history that artificial birth control is a grave sin. The Fathers of the Church recognized the biblical and natural law principles that are the foundation of the Church' s condemnation of artificial birth control.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ' s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]). - Augustine
The early church' s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."
John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception' s evils.)
Pope Paul VI warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men - especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point - have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).
No one can deny the fulfillment of these prophetic words. It is a painfully clear description of the loose sexual morality of this country. Pornography is becoming mainstream. Abortion is now used as a form of birth control for any reason whatsoever. Sex is no longer viewed as a sacred gift from God to a married man and woman. Homosexuals are now getting married in " Christian " churches. They are even getting ordained as clergy. Young children are increasingly the victims of sexual predators (often their own relatives, family members, teachers, and clergy!). Divorce no longer alarms Christians. It is considered a normal part of life! Numerous surveys report that a majority of married men, and an alarmingly high percentage of women have had adulterous affairs. Teens are engaging in fornication or other sexual behaviors in alarming numbers. We have lost our grasp of what sex truly is, and we have lost all self-control and chastity. These are among the fruits of artificial contraception.
When the Anglican Church, in 1930, caved in to public demand for artificial contraception, the Pope warned that it was not of God. It takes its place within the culture of death which includes artificial contraception, abortion, fornication, pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, violence, rape, adultery, pedophilia, war, social isolation, moral relativism, idolatry, and disrespect for other human beings, and many others. Artificial contraception, in no way, can impart the dignity and worth of the human being upon us. Even for good intentions, the means do not justify the end. To do something evil to bring about that which is good, is not acceptable to God.
THE FRUIT OF PRACTICING HONEST REGULATION OF BIRTH
Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 21, spells out the fruit of honest practices of regulation of birth. As it says in Mt. 7:15-23, false prophets come in sheep' s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious. By their fruit you will recognize them. There are many Protestants and Catholics who use artificial birth control, and haven' t turned into adulterers, rapists, homosexuals, abortion-seekers, pornography addicts, etc. But they are settling for less than what God has for them. They are outside of the will of God. They are short-changing their spouses and children. They are exchanging the truth of God for a lie and are lifting themselves up rather than the Creator. It doesn' t make them bad people. It doesn' t make them " the scum of the earth. " There are many who don' t even know that it is outside the will of God to use artificial birth control. Is that their fault? No, not usually. God is merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. This is a difficult teaching for people to embrace. Pray for the grace to accept God' s will and to live by it.
21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.
Next Post: The Use of Condoms in AIDS Prevention.
This is largely a response to a good friend's comments to a previoius blog entry, where he said, " a very interesting discussion! i have to say, the catholic church's position on birth control is one where i have a bit of a struggle. from my understanding, birth control is accepted in the catholic church, as long as it's a 'natural' rhythm method, and not artificial. is that correct? if so, the church objects only to the means of contraception, not to contraception itself... "
My assumption upon writing this, is that Christians accept that there is right and wrong, that there is truth, and that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
When Jesus was speaking to the disciples in John 14 he said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you...All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:15-18, 25-26).
Later Jesus said, " But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13). "
Jesus promised to send the Spirit of truth, The Holy Spirit, because He knew that people will come along, claiming to speak the truth, when, in fact, they are speaking lies. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. There are several warnings to Christians about false teachers and prophets in the Bible. One such warning is found in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7 verses 15-23.
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' - Mt. 7:15-23
I am a Catholic convert and therefore, believe that the Catholic Church's teaching on artificial contraception is truth. I believe this about all of the Catholic Church's teachings even though many of the members of the Church have strayed far from the actual teachings, have forgotten the actual teachings, and/or have inappropriately applied such teachings. Catholics and Protestants have MANY misunderstandings and cling to MANY misconceptions about each other. Having been a Protestant all my life until this past year, I believe that Protestant churches, to varying degrees, also have the truth, that they are a blessing to the people of this world in need of a Savior, and that they also have much to offer to Catholic Christians. But I believe the Catholic doesn'th does not merely have truth, it has the fullness of truth. I believe the Catholic Church still believes and teaches what the early Church believed and taught. I believe the Catholic Church is the only church that has not caved in to pressures from within and without to conform to the ways of this world. The Catholic Church holds fast to what the Church has always taught throughout history in matters of faith and morality. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly ordain gay clergy. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly approve of, and support abortion. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly approve of, and support sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. And, unlike the rest of Christianity (which I believe is in error on this matter), the Catholic Church is never going to willingly change its mind due to public pressure, and suddenly start teaching that contraception is acceptable. If something is morally wrong one day, why would it cease to be morally wrong the next day? Since the beginning of the Church, and notably, since 1930, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
All Protestant denominations were in agreement with the Catholic Church's teaching that artificial contraception is sinful until August 14, 1930. In 1930, at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church, under increasing public pressure, changed its teaching, and allowed contraception for married couples in certain circumstances. Not long after this, the Anglican Church caved in completely, and allowed contraception for married couples for any circumstances! Since 1930, all Protestant denominations changed their teachings on the issue of birth control.
Very strong words were used in an editorial to the Washington Post (March 22, 1931) regarding the actions of churches which changed their teachings on artificial contraception and indicate the general understanding that contraception is evil. "The departures from Christian teachings are astounding in many cases, leaving the beholder aghast at the willingness of some churches to discard the ancient injunction to teach 'Christ and Him crucified.' . . . Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the deathknell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous."
In the late nineteen century American anti-contraceptive laws were passed by largely Protestant legislatures for a largely Protestant United States. In 1873 a Protestant reformer, Anthony Comstock, persuaded Congress to outlaw the sale and distribution of contraceptive devices in federal territories, and many states followed suit. The body of legislation was called the Comstock Laws and remained in effect in some states until 1965 (Charles Provan, in The Bible and Birth Control). "
Artificial contraception is in conflict with God's laws. The following is the teaching of the Catholic Church on artificial contraception (bold font) as spelled out in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, along with my commentary (not bold font).
8. Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love, "the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named."
Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.
This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.
...this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.
this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."
Marriage is an institution, and a sacrament, given to us by God. It is because of God' s love that we have marriage. Marriage is a total giving of one' s self to another, in which everything is to be shared without selfishness. This total love brings a bond of unity between a married couple (between a man and a woman) unlike any other. Additionally, marriage is also about procreation since " children are the supreme gift of marriage. "
10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
Responsible parenthood is to embrace the gift of sexual union (in marriage) in its fullness. God wants us to " be fruitful and multiply. " It is part of the purpose of our sexuality. Again, it is natural law. God wants married couples to have children. Sometimes responsible parents decide, for what the church describes as " grave motives and with due respect for the moral law " to avoid having children. " Grave motives " do not include materialistic considerations (we will not be able to afford a yacht if we have another child) or personal preferences (I do not really want anymore children). " Grave motives " means that there must be serious reasons not to have more children. One couple elected to have only one child because the doctors discovered that their baby had so many birth defects. Their doctors and many friends and family counseled the couple to abort the baby. The couple chose to go ahead and have the baby and take care of it even though it would need constant care and attention. Their son required so much attention and care that they could not possibly care for another child.
So there are times when it is acceptable to avoid having children, but only in such a way that is in conformity with God's will and with the natural order in which He created us.
11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood.
13. It is in fact justly observed that a conjugal act imposed upon one's partner without regard for his or her condition and lawful desires is not a true act of love, and therefore denies an exigency of right moral order in the relationships between husband and wife. Likewise, if they consider the matter, they must admit that an act of mutual love, which is detrimental to the faculty of propagating life, which God the Creator of all, has implanted in it according to special laws, is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. On the other hand, to make use of the gift of conjugal love while respecting the laws of the generative process means to acknowledge oneself not to be the arbiter of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. "Human life is sacred," Pope John XXIII recalled; "from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.
God, in his wisdom, designed natural laws in such a way that there are natural rhythms of the potential reproductive capacity of a person. Sexual union amongst a married couple will not always result in the conception of a new person. This is fully acceptable to God since this is the way He designed us. But we are to always be mindful of natural law and of the Church' s teachings, that " each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. "
The two purposes of sex, then, are 1) an expression of love, intimacy and union between a married man and woman, and 2) procreation. This is not just arbitrary observations; these are part of natural law. This is the fullness of the gift of sexuality that God has given to us. God, in his wisdom, chose to give us the gift of sexuality as it is. Why would we only take half the gift? To take half of it is to abuse the giver of the gift, and also to abuse the gift itself. The way God made our bodies, and the way in which God instituted marriage as a covenant that should last a lifetime, and the way in which God intends the marriage union to be a union of total love - " by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. " We do not just choose one or the other of the essential aspects the sexual act between a husband and a wife. It comes as a total package, and is an offense to God to " tear apart " the gift that God, himself, gave to us, keeping only the part that we find convenient, useful, or wanted. " The conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination toward man' s most high calling to parenthood. "
A conjugal act imposed upon one' s partner is not an act of love, and is both contrary to the right moral order established by God, and is also an abuse of the gift of sexual union within a marriage in a way that it harms the relationship between a husband and wife. It is an abuse of one of the two purposes of sex. It is a perversion of the gift of sexual union. In the same way, an act of sexual union which is not open to the " faculty of propagating life " is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. " To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. "
14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.
16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
Here the teaching that it is not acceptable to use artificial birth control is re-stated. Furthermore, it does explain the proper means of preventing birth when, after a " grave motive " has been found, it is deemed that it is best to delay the birth of a new child. If done naturally, according to natural law, chastely, and with self-control, it is acceptable to abstain from sexual union during the times when the probability of conception is least. One may ask, well if a couple is allowed to do this, then what' s the big deal about using artificial means? The Church has always maintained, and still maintains, that artificial birth control is not acceptable. " There are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love. "
CHURCH TEACHING THROUGH THE CENTURIES
Contraception is barely mentioned in scripture. Abortion, euthanasia, and cloning are not mentioned either. Birth control has been around for a long, long time. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating as far back as 1900 B.C. describe ancient methods of birth control that were also practiced later in the Roman empire. They mentioned wools that absorb sperm, poisons that were used in the uterus, potions, and other methods used to prevent conception. Even condoms (made of animal skin rather than latex) were used.
The only reference of contraception that I am aware of in Scripture is when Onan, to avoid fulfilling his duty according to ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one ' s dead brother, knew that the offspring would not be his so when he went into his brother' s wife he spilled the seed on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. " And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also (Gen 38:8-10) "
The prescribed penalty for not giving your brother' s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut 25:7-10). Onan was killed for more than avoiding his duty as a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he broke natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. Just as the Bible need not detail every form of stealing and murder to show that stealing and murder of every kind, is wrong, it need not go into every form of birth control to show that they are wrong too. Contraception was so far outside the Jewish and Christian mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Once a moral issue is established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned.
The early church fathers knew it was wrong and taught from the beginning of Church history that artificial birth control is a grave sin. The Fathers of the Church recognized the biblical and natural law principles that are the foundation of the Church' s condemnation of artificial birth control.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ' s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]). - Augustine
The early church' s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."
John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception' s evils.)
Pope Paul VI warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men - especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point - have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).
No one can deny the fulfillment of these prophetic words. It is a painfully clear description of the loose sexual morality of this country. Pornography is becoming mainstream. Abortion is now used as a form of birth control for any reason whatsoever. Sex is no longer viewed as a sacred gift from God to a married man and woman. Homosexuals are now getting married in " Christian " churches. They are even getting ordained as clergy. Young children are increasingly the victims of sexual predators (often their own relatives, family members, teachers, and clergy!). Divorce no longer alarms Christians. It is considered a normal part of life! Numerous surveys report that a majority of married men, and an alarmingly high percentage of women have had adulterous affairs. Teens are engaging in fornication or other sexual behaviors in alarming numbers. We have lost our grasp of what sex truly is, and we have lost all self-control and chastity. These are among the fruits of artificial contraception.
When the Anglican Church, in 1930, caved in to public demand for artificial contraception, the Pope warned that it was not of God. It takes its place within the culture of death which includes artificial contraception, abortion, fornication, pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, violence, rape, adultery, pedophilia, war, social isolation, moral relativism, idolatry, and disrespect for other human beings, and many others. Artificial contraception, in no way, can impart the dignity and worth of the human being upon us. Even for good intentions, the means do not justify the end. To do something evil to bring about that which is good, is not acceptable to God.
THE FRUIT OF PRACTICING HONEST REGULATION OF BIRTH
Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 21, spells out the fruit of honest practices of regulation of birth. As it says in Mt. 7:15-23, false prophets come in sheep' s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious. By their fruit you will recognize them. There are many Protestants and Catholics who use artificial birth control, and haven' t turned into adulterers, rapists, homosexuals, abortion-seekers, pornography addicts, etc. But they are settling for less than what God has for them. They are outside of the will of God. They are short-changing their spouses and children. They are exchanging the truth of God for a lie and are lifting themselves up rather than the Creator. It doesn' t make them bad people. It doesn' t make them " the scum of the earth. " There are many who don' t even know that it is outside the will of God to use artificial birth control. Is that their fault? No, not usually. God is merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. This is a difficult teaching for people to embrace. Pray for the grace to accept God' s will and to live by it.
21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.
Next Post: The Use of Condoms in AIDS Prevention.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Catch up
Life has been somewhat busy. Sunday-Monday: Led a retreat with the high school guys that I join with on a weekly basis for support, prayer, and encouragement. We talked about worship, and how its not just singing songs or saying prayers, and acting religious. It is about giving God what he is worth, which is everything we have. I was very impressed by how they responded to the discussions. These guys are great people. They are truly a joy to spend time with. They mean the world to me. I want nothing but the best for them.
We stayed up very late playing cards and watching movies. I think I went to bed at 4:30 in the morning. We had to get up at 9:00 in the morning for breakfast and for a discussion so that we'd have time to clean up before we had to go home. We ate very good food. I had to do all the cooking, and I am a wannabe chef. Hamburgers for lunch Sunday. Spaghetti for dinner. French Toast for breakfast Monday. Good stuff.
I tried to get some work done but mostly played games and vegged on Monday. Read some Harry Potter until it was quite late, and slept in very late. I was a little disappointed that I slept so long but I was so tired. Had plans to get a lot of work done, but didn't get around to it.
Thursday I drove up to Lansing to visit my aunt, uncle, and cousins. I am not very close to my extended family. I think they view my mom as kinda the black sheep and I am an "illegitimate son." I've noticed since I was quite young that they don't really respect her very much, and often feel as though they think something's wrong with me. But the family I visited with on Thursday is quite different. They are very warm and loving and fun to be around. They are the only family I think I could get close to but they live in Florida so I am worried that when my mom passes away I will be all alone (God, of course, will always be with me).
My mom is a great mom. I love her dearly. If you were to meet her and get to know her you would love her dearly too. She is a very sweet person. I don't think she sees it. She is rather insecure, and misunderstands me. She often finds things in what I say or do that are just not true. I have no idea how she misinterprets me so badly. Her insecurities tend to cause her to see me as the problem rather than her insecurities and I sometimes get yelled at for things that I never did, said, or thought. The thing is, nobody has perfect parents, and as far as parents go, my mom is one of the best parents I've ever seen in action. And for the most part, other than the occasional frustration with her misdirected dealings with her insecurities, she is a wonderful person. I have a great deal of respect for her. I don't know how she continually takes hold of the grace to deal with her illnesses with the class and dignity that she does, but I am very impressed.
No parent has perfect children. I am not the most sensitive, compassionate, understanding, nurturing person. This does not mean that I am without love and concern for my mom, or for others. I just need to work more on being more nurturing and sensitive to her and her needs, while at the same time, doing it in such a way that maintains as much independence as possible for her.
I remembered, as I visited my relatives, that my mom is an amazing person, and that she has been a huge blessing to me.
Tonight I hung out with my friend, Dave. He is a great friend. We went to Ashley's Pub and then rented a movie. Had a great time.
We stayed up very late playing cards and watching movies. I think I went to bed at 4:30 in the morning. We had to get up at 9:00 in the morning for breakfast and for a discussion so that we'd have time to clean up before we had to go home. We ate very good food. I had to do all the cooking, and I am a wannabe chef. Hamburgers for lunch Sunday. Spaghetti for dinner. French Toast for breakfast Monday. Good stuff.
I tried to get some work done but mostly played games and vegged on Monday. Read some Harry Potter until it was quite late, and slept in very late. I was a little disappointed that I slept so long but I was so tired. Had plans to get a lot of work done, but didn't get around to it.
Thursday I drove up to Lansing to visit my aunt, uncle, and cousins. I am not very close to my extended family. I think they view my mom as kinda the black sheep and I am an "illegitimate son." I've noticed since I was quite young that they don't really respect her very much, and often feel as though they think something's wrong with me. But the family I visited with on Thursday is quite different. They are very warm and loving and fun to be around. They are the only family I think I could get close to but they live in Florida so I am worried that when my mom passes away I will be all alone (God, of course, will always be with me).
My mom is a great mom. I love her dearly. If you were to meet her and get to know her you would love her dearly too. She is a very sweet person. I don't think she sees it. She is rather insecure, and misunderstands me. She often finds things in what I say or do that are just not true. I have no idea how she misinterprets me so badly. Her insecurities tend to cause her to see me as the problem rather than her insecurities and I sometimes get yelled at for things that I never did, said, or thought. The thing is, nobody has perfect parents, and as far as parents go, my mom is one of the best parents I've ever seen in action. And for the most part, other than the occasional frustration with her misdirected dealings with her insecurities, she is a wonderful person. I have a great deal of respect for her. I don't know how she continually takes hold of the grace to deal with her illnesses with the class and dignity that she does, but I am very impressed.
No parent has perfect children. I am not the most sensitive, compassionate, understanding, nurturing person. This does not mean that I am without love and concern for my mom, or for others. I just need to work more on being more nurturing and sensitive to her and her needs, while at the same time, doing it in such a way that maintains as much independence as possible for her.
I remembered, as I visited my relatives, that my mom is an amazing person, and that she has been a huge blessing to me.
Tonight I hung out with my friend, Dave. He is a great friend. We went to Ashley's Pub and then rented a movie. Had a great time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)