Skip to comments.Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul
Posted on 08/27/2010 6:52:49 AM PDT by markomalley
Having seen an inordinate number of eloquent commentaries delineating the moral evils of the recent United States District Court decision nullifying the will of California voters on Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, I am nonetheless left wondering why none of the commentators was able to connect the dots.
Obviously, same-sex marriage or even same-sex civil unions are a bad idea, particularly if legitimized by a court system that previously put its stamp of approval on contraception and abortion. But why isnt anyone pointing out the obvious root cause of this latest moral and legal debacle? Why isnt anyone hammering on contraception?
In April of this year, months before this decision, Jenn Giroux, executive director of HLI America, explained to readers that the public acceptance of contraception has led to (among other things) [s]maller and more broken families, rampant homosexuality, pornography, and Chinas coercive one-child policy.
Earlier, wise teachers such as Professor Janet Smith emphatically linked a rejection of Pope Paul VIs profoundly wise encyclical Humanae Vitae to a wide acceptance of homosexuality. In her 2003 comments, she pointed out what I believe is the real problemone that very few will admit: Rather than holding to the Christian and common sense view that sex belongs within marriage between a male and a female committed to each other for life and open to children, our culture thinks that sex is quite simply for pleasureand that almost any combination of consenting individuals may morally seek that pleasure without any commitment, without an openness to children.
In 1998, Father John Hardon, SJ, who is sorely missed by many of us who were his students, pointed out in Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life, The spectacle of broken families, broken homes, divorce and annulments, abortion and the mania of homosexualityall of this has its roots in the acceptance of contraception on a wide scale in what only two generations ago was a professed Catholic population.
Clearly, many wise people have understoodand warned us about the cost of contraception. But not everyone is on this page.
For example, rather than setting forth facts regarding the nature of sexual sin and its tragic consequences, many members of the Catholic clergy have either been totally silent or have said things that not only confuse fact with fiction but further marginalize Catholic teaching. This, in turn, makes Church doctrine less palatable to a sexually saturated culture, even though Catholic teaching is now and always will be worthy of belief and obediencebecause it contains the fullness of truth.
During their November 2006 meeting, for example, the U.S. Catholic bishops acknowledged that most married Catholics96 percent, according to their own estimateuse birth control, and the bishops said they recognize that the [C]hurchs teachings on homosexuality are contested in American society.
Excuse me, but those percentages do not change truth. In fact, they should drive more bishops back to boldly teaching their people instead of gauging the content of their message on public acceptance of what they have to say. Its the type of posturing that perhaps led to Cardinal Francis George, current U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops president, saying (in response to the judges decision allowing same-sex marriage), Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good.
He did not say nor did he make reference to the obvious fact that this very sad state of affairs would not exist in the first place if contraception had been rejected long ago. He was simply silent on the point.
This is why I recommend that rather than dialoguing, as a whole, every Catholic bishop and every Catholic priest should be teaching, preaching and exhorting. Nobody really knows what America or its court decisions would look like today if the Catholics of this nation had been properly catechized for the past 42 years on matters pertaining to human sexuality.
What we do know is that today America and, most importantly, Catholics, are sliding toward a moral hell.
Its high time many more Catholic leaders in the U.S. stood up and clarified the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, sinfulness and sinlessness. Why? Because the only treatment for the deadly bacteria raging through the veins of this society is a very strong dose of the same message Christ gave to His disciples a very long time ago: Try your hardest to enter by the narrow door, because, I tell you, many will try to enter and will not succeed (Luke 13: 24).
The narrow door is always open, and frankly, anything less than fighting tooth and nail to get there will not heal this ailing body politic we know as America.
If it’s morally right now, what made it morally wrong then?
There are some situations in which contraception is necessary. As for being moral or immoral, that is a matter of opinion.
My wife and I decided that 3 kids was enough, and then I got a vasectomy. How is that wrong?
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout ‘AMEN’!
I made sure to thank Father Greg for the great homily after Mass. I hope that countered any ‘hate mail’ he received on the matter.
Separating sex from lifelong married commitment is really a detriment to a society, because it diminishes the basic building block institutions of marriage and family.
So, contraception, in and of itself, is amoral, but how it is used certainly a moral question.
Such is the nature of human progress.
Civil union is an inevitable. We can differentiate CU from ‘marriage’ because of the religious connotations.
Religions emphasize that marriage is a sacred oath. Civil unions are legal partnerships.
If civil unions are ‘permitted’, then the gay community should not be the only beneficiaries.
Two orphaned sisters who find themselves single, by divorce, choice, widowhood, etc., should be able to join in civil unions for the same advantages: property inheritance, job benefits, pensions, insurance and so forth.
Any combination...elderly father and son living together, Mother and daughter, two middle aged ‘friends’ of any sex, etc., who find a civil union would provide legal and financial advantages should have the same access to this legal provision.
The key word is "decided". The ability to decide is what separates man from beast. The ability to actually implement one's decisions effectively is what separates advanced societies from primitive ones.
Not long ago, people were sick, and hungry, and overworked. They didn't bathe. They didn't go around in sexy outfits. Yes, they had sex -- but not like Cameron Diaz has sex.
Our culture shows us Henry VIII and says "See? It's always been about sex!" But not everyone is King of England.
Contraception changed everything. Now we are free to be tremendously irresponsible. Before, there were consequences. We have been lessened by our rampant sexual behavior -- but we try to convince ourselves that it's always been this way and that nothing has really changed.
It has to be taken on a case by case basis. Having sex out of wed lock is amoral, from a Christian point of view, regardless of contraception. I don't see where contraception is amoral, it is a tool, like a gun, that accomplishes a function. Tools are not amoral but how they are used can be.
No, it is not. It is a matter of moral judgment, as to whether something is right or wrong, just as the morality or immorality of (for example) abortion, racial discrimination, theft, adultery, and drunk driving are matters of moral judgment.
If you wish to say that there are no genuine judgments of right or wrong, that in itself is a judgment that you have made, and it's one that requires a defense, rather than simply an assertion.
This post (if I may extrapolate) demonstrates the author's point about the uselessness of "dialogue." If dialogue is only, "This is your opinion; that is my opinion," with the assumption that there is no right or wrong, it's a waste of time. Useful dialogue would start with the premise that there is a right and wrong, which we can determine using our reason, and that all the parties involved are interested in finding the truth and living according to it.
In the absence of that bedrock principle - which is the ambient state of our society - exhortation is what is needed, especially from our clergy.
People need to seriously think through the question of whether they’re cut out to be parents — and, if the answer is “no”, to take appropriate precautions.
I’ve done the same when our pastors have spoken out.
Our priest gave a great homily on the use of artificial b.c. some time ago. I think I felt some people squirming in their pews ;) It was one of those times when I wanted to jump up and shout AMEN!Plaudits to Fr Greg. Fr John gave a similar homily at our church, and it was just weeks after his very descriptive partial birth abortion homily. After the BC one, there were literally people waiting for him after Mass. Ugly scene. They transferred him within weeks.
I agree. If there is a need for the legal provisions of "domestic partnership," on top of what current contract law already provides, then whether the couple or group is engaging in some kind of sexual activity should be irrelevant.
As a practical point, I question whether this legal provision is necessary, unless it forcibly (so to speak) tidies up the current stew of contract, power-of-attorney, estates-and-trusts, real estate, and other relevant law.
Slight clarification of terms:
amoral - having no moral component, no right or wrong attribute.
immoral - morally wrong
Now, I’m sure you meant that sex outside of marriage is IMmoral from a Christian point of view. Contraception is Amoral - it’s a tool or a concept. Tools are Amoral.
With that clarification, you and I agree.
Contraception use in marriage is the choice of the couple involved.
Catholics are of the opinion all contraception is amoral, most of us are not Catholic.
It's a whole thought system.
IF suddenly another child was shoved into your life (pregnancy, adoption, space aliens cloned/doubled one of your children) would you love another child just because he was there?
No, that’s the different between “opinion” and “fact.” Moral questions are questions of fact, independent of individuals’ beliefs. Drunk driving, for example, is either morally wrong, or it’s morally acceptable. Whichever it is, is independent of whether you or I or 1,000 randomly selected likely voters think it’s right or wrong.
I agree and I would go as far as to say contraception has been an enabler (not a cause) of immorality. Just as guns have enabled more people to commit murder.
It would be just as wrong to ban contraception as it would to ban guns. Both serve a purpose in society and there will always be cases where those tools are used for evil purposes.
And since no 'precaution is 100%, is abortion acceptable? If they are 'cut out to be parents' under regular cicumstances, but later the child is injured and permantently handicapped, what then?
I disagree. "Contraceptives" are tools - a device or a drug - but "contraception" is an action. A gun is a tool, but shooting it is an action.
Actions can be morally neutral, but I don't believe sexual behavior generally falls in that category. Our country - our entire society as it's been constructed - is on the verge of self-destructing largely over sexual behavior and its consequences.
“Catholics are of the opinion all contraception is amoral, most of us are not Catholic”
Liberal Catholics agree with most other sorts of Christians on birth control. Liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics disagree on this issue. I don’t think you could find a liberal Catholic who digs abortion, “gay marriage”, and homosexualist clergy in “relationships” who also doesn’t think the Church is wrong on birth control.
The opinion of society is that drunk driving is immoral because it risks the life of others. If in the future we no longer value life the way we do now then the opinion of drunk driving could change, meaning it is not a fact that drunk driving is immoral.
Religious beliefs allow an individual to establish truths based on faith and the word of God. This is where science and religion get into trouble. What may be a matter of opinion to a scientist is considered a fact by a religious individual.
I do not condemn that as extremist, let me pose a few possible answers.
I do not know if the progressives are right or wrong. I believe in the concept of absolute truth, but I believe it exists for each individual that God creates, and differs from person to person.
I think because, in the past, the church wanted to increase it’s members.
Perhaps, it wasn’t morally wrong prior to 1930?
Excellent article and it points out what I have long argued is the truth about the root of society’s growing acceptance of homosexual behavior.
Their 19th child, a girl, was born at only 25 weeks and has endured many serious medical complications. I think we can say the little one has suffered. All this because her mother developed "pregnancy-induced high blood pressure."
In addition to using the vast resources of our healthcare system, the birth has no doubt put a huge strain on the entire family. When does it end? When Mrs. Duggar's body finally gives out and she dies in childbirth at #27?
It is the same technology and progress that gives us both artificial contraception and the medical advancements that keet the Duggar baby alive.
I consider it immoral to bring a child into the world with the knowledge that it will suffer because you cannot support it. Either abstain from sex or use contraception but do not knowingly and purposely cause suffering based on a personal belief (that makes it selfish).
As always, it’s a heart issue that’s the problem, not a legal issue.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
“Society as a whole gets to decide what is morally acceptable”
Really? You believe morality should be based on something as changable as society and not on an absolute Truth based on natural law and/or God’s word?
How true. If only there were a test for altruism among men. Most of the time it is the those who do not want the responsibility that make the best leaders.
I find birth control conceptually amoral. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil.
I find nothing morally wrong with attempting pregnancy prevention within marriage. The concept of healthy moral sexuality remains the same ... between a loving married couple (that is prepared to have children). “Prepared” does not necessarily mean they are currently intending to get pregnant. I don’t think this makes marital sex a more “selfish” act — the Song of Solomon is pretty clear that sex for pleasure is not immoral.
The fact is, if God disagrees ... He can (and will) override (I can vouch for this fact). Birth control or not, it is ultimately in His hands.
Birth control when used for the purpose of allowing sexual promiscuity, unmarried intercourse, etc., etc. is a tool of evil.
There are innumerable mutually exclusive claims about what is and is not “natural law” and/or “God’s word”. Ultimately, human society has to sort them out, accepting some and rejecting others.
Yeah, and humans are SO capable of determining what is and what is not God’s Word...
gimme a break.
As I also added, you and I may not agree or go along with what society believes. Our reality does not equal society’s reality but we have to answer for violations of society’s code of conduct.
I have many opinions of truth that I know much of society would not agree with. Because I cannot prove my position they are simply opinions, that many I associate with also share my views simply reinforces their “truth”.
It’s important to separate the word of God from mans opinions. One changes all the time the other is set in stone. I know that over time many things will become acceptable to society, I didn’t say it made it right. It’s better to understand your fellow man and his intentions than hold judgment over his failings to your standards.
>> I consider it immoral to bring a child into the world with the knowledge that it will suffer because you cannot support it. Either abstain from sex or use contraception but do not knowingly and purposely cause suffering based on a personal belief (that makes it selfish).
What level of “suffering” is required before life is no longer worth living? Are you confident enough in your answer to decide that someone else will suffer too much to make their life worthwhile?
Giving life always creates the opportunity for suffering ... but also the opportunity for happiness. Some of the happiest people I have ever encountered have endured some of the worst suffering.
Do you have a difficult time figuring out whether or not to believe whether or not what the Koran says is the word of God?
Are you human?
I know how to read,
and I know how to exegetically read God’s Word in the Bible.
When ANY assertion is contrary, it should be rejected as not true.
It is NOT my judgement, it is the clear reading of the revealed Word of God.
I didn’t suggest extinguishing life merely preventing it’s creation in the first place. Anytime a choice is involved that prevents a far more serious choice from being made I err on the side of prevention. Why create a situation where such a horrible “choice” has to be made when a little self control will make it a non issue?
I should add I am staunchly against abortion and even more so when it is a result of poor choices in the first place.
It’s easy to tell the Koran is not the word of God. The book contradicts itself in later passages and then suggests that lying is an acceptable practice to defend the faith. I can’t imagine God ever suggesting it’s OK to lie for him.
“I disagree. “Contraceptives” are tools - a device or a drug - but “contraception” is an action. A gun is a tool, but shooting it is an action”
What hasn’t been stated here is that the Catholic Church says, “No ARTIFICIAL contraception is allow. They do allow “natural” means, whatever you consider that to be. I don’t see how natural is any different than taking a pill. Also, if we are suppose to allow God to decide how many children we have then wouldn’t it be wrong for a Catholic to undergo fertility treatments that are unnatural also? Seems to me if you are to accept children from God you should also accept when God doesn’t send you children. Just asking, I’m not sure what the Church’s stand on that is.
Whether or not it should be is irrelevant. It is what it is, as God designed it to be.
Part of the problem here is that people are assuming if you’re against contraception, you are forcing people to have kids.
If for some good reason, you don’t wish to have any more kids, the good Lord gave you an easy, natural way to do that, to which the Church does not object: DON’T HAVE INTERCOURSE DURING FERTILE PERIODS.
That’s it. And if you can’t do that simple thing, I may well wonder what is wrong with your level of self-control. Do you also eat pizza at funerals? Do you also belch in Church?
So is a vasectomy a one time sin or a sin every time you have sex? What about women that have to have hysterectomies? How about tubes removed from ectopic pregnancies? I’m curious where the lines are drawn myself.
Self control is different for everyone some are better than others, that’s why we have druggies and sex addicts.
Ignore those who may think your decision is wrong.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred.
--"Lazarus Long" (Robert A. Heinlein)