Posted on 07/25/2008 10:19:40 AM PDT by NYer
...by Mary Eberstadt, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a great article in the August/September issue of First Things and is available online. I'll get you started:
That Humanae Vitae and related Catholic teachings about sexual morality are laughingstocks in all the best places is not exactly news. Even in the benighted precincts of believers, where information from the outside world is known to travel exceedingly slowly, everybody grasps that this is one doctrine the world loves to hate. During Benedict XVI’s April visit to the United States, hardly a story in the secular press failed to mention the teachings of Humanae Vitae, usually alongside adjectives like “divisive” and “controversial” and “outdated.” In fact, if there’s anything on earth that unites the Church’s adversaries—all of them except for the Muslims, anyway—the teaching against contraception is probably it.
To many people, both today and when the encyclical was promulgated on July 25, 1968, the notion simply defies understanding. Consenting adults, told not to use birth control? Preposterous. Third World parents deprived access to contraception and abortion? Positively criminal. A ban on condoms when there’s a risk of contracting AIDS? Beneath contempt.
“The execration of the world,” in philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe’s phrase, was what Paul VI incurred with that document—to which the years since 1968 have added plenty of just plain ridicule. Hasn’t everyone heard Monty Python’s send-up song “Every Sperm Is Sacred”? Or heard the jokes? “You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules.” And “What do you call the rhythm method? Vatican roulette.” And “What do you call a woman who uses the rhythm method? Mommy.”
Thanks to Marcel LeJeune for the link. Read his commentary and thoughts over on the Aggie Catholics blog.
“The onslaught of porn,” one social observer wrote, “is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as ‘porn-worthy.’” Further, “sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersize portions, and obesity. . . . If your appetite is stimulated and fed by poor-quality material, it takes more junk to fill you up. People are not closer because of porn but further apart; people are not more turned on in their daily lives but less so.” And perhaps most shocking of all, this—which with just a little tweaking could easily have appeared in Humanae Vitae itself: “The power and charge of sex are maintained when there is some sacredness to it, when it is not on tap all the time.”
By giving benediction in 1930 to its married heterosexual members purposely seeking sterile sex, the Anglican Church lost, bit by bit, any authority to tell her other members—married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual—not to do the same. To put the point another way, once heterosexuals start claiming the right to act as homosexuals, it would not be long before homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals.
Here is a paraphrase of something I heard this on the radio this week:
“The truth of the Church’s moral teachings are evidenced by the wounds of those who ignore them.”
or
“The best evidence of the truth of the Church’s moral teachings are the wounds of those who ignore them.”
Not sure of its origin, but it is an awfully good line.
Wow ... isn’t that the truth! Those who choose to ignore the signs, pay the price.
I found it, here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0109.html
Not surprisingly, it’s from theologian Christopher West.
“Sadly, the truth of the Church’s teaching on sex is confirmed in the wounds of those who haven’t lived it.”
Here is the quote in context:
“But the tide is changing. People can only put up with the counterfeits for so long. Not only do they fail to satisfy, they wound us terribly. Sadly, the truth of the Church’s teaching on sex is confirmed in the wounds of those who haven’t lived it. Our longings for love, intimacy, and freedom are good. But the sexual revolution sold us a bill of goods. We haven’t been ‘liberated.’ We’ve been duped, betrayed, and left wanting.”
“A more obedient laity might have wondered aloud about the fact that a significant number of priests post-Vatican II seemed more or less openly gay. A more obedient clergy might have noticed that plenty of Catholics using artificial contraception were also taking Communion. It is hard to believe that either new development—the widespread open rebellion against church sexual teachings by the laity, or the concomitant quiet rebellion against church sexual teachings by a significant number of priests—could have existed without the other.”
Bam.
Why don’t we vindicate the ‘Council of Florence’ as well while we’re at it!
“The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.”
She missed a biggie, imho:a lessening of respect for men by women.
That might be worse than the other way around.
One could argue, persuasively, I think, that the attacks against men by women would result in men seeking other avenues or activities [even the bad ones that lead to jail etc.] almost as a defense mechanism.
I am suspecting the lessening of respect for men by women predates the observed opposite.
You can attribute that to the Feminist movement which has emasculated men beginning in pre-K. Look back through history and you will discover that any time women rose to power, homosexuals rapidly rose to power as well. It doesn't take long after that before society collapses. It's happened before and, will happen again.
Pope Benedict XVI's great strides toward reconciliation with the patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow are indeed a vindication of the Council of Florence.
>>Why don’t we vindicate the ‘Council of Florence’ as well while we’re at it!
>>>>Pope Benedict XVI’s great strides toward reconciliation with the patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow are indeed a vindication of the Council of Florence.
Actually I had this part in mind:
“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
A contentious chicken-vs.-egg dispute on this subject could be held, but I can't see what would be gained by it, except perhaps learning some new vocabulary.
However, your main point is a very good one. Contraception is a rejection of both men's and women's created nature. The article's author was following the points made by the Pope in Humanae Vitae.
BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.