The Quiet Toll Of A Broken Spirit

“... for when a man's spirit has been thoroughly crushed, he may be peevish at small offenses, but never resentful of great ones.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 141

The Enduring Consequences Of Our Actions

“Still, there will be a connection with the long past-a reference to forgotten events and personages, and to manners, feelings, and opinions, almost or wholly obsolete-which, if adequately translated to the reader, would serve to illustrate how much of old materials goes up to make the freshest novelty of human life. Hence, to, might be drawn a weighty lesson from the little regarded truth, that the act of the passing generation is the germ which may and must bear good or evil fruit in a far-distant time; that, with the seed of the merely temporary crop, which morals term expediency, they inevitably sow the acorns of a more enduring growth, which may darkly overshadow their posterity.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 2

Roman Catholic Sexual Ethics, Weaknesses And Red Flags

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the more problematic aspects of Roman Catholic sexual ethics. While there is much teaching on human sexuality and marriage that is commendable, it often falls short when addressing the practical function of sexual relations within marriage. Excerpts from Pope Paul VI's papal encyclical titled Humanae Vitae are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary.

          "...And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason." (paragraph 12)

         While the Bible emphasizes marriage's unitive and procreative aspects, it also values love, mutual support, and commitment (Genesis 2:18-24). Notably, there are respected biblical marriages without children (e.g., Abraham and Sarah before Isaac, Zacharias and Elisabeth before John the Baptist). Jesus emphasized love as the core of relationships (John 13:34), which applies to marriage beyond just procreation.

          "...Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator." (paragraph 13)

          This sort of thinking appeals to self-righteous individuals who invent standards which suit their goofy ideas about life. However, understanding the different purposes a body part can serve in various contexts does not necessarily mean that it is being misused or abused. For example, consider the mouth: humans use their mouths for speaking, breathing, and even whistling, which goes beyond its primary biological function (i.e. eating). Similarly, contraception can be seen as respecting the natural versatility of human functions, rather than being "opposition" to the divine plan.

          "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (paragraph 14)

          Prohibiting non-abortive contraception, even when a woman is more likely than usual to experience complications or death, seems inconsistent with Rome's pro-life message. It places the potential for new life above the well-being and life of the woman.

          "Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these." (paragraph 14)

          Human sexuality is complex and multi-dimensional. It serves not only reproductive purposes, but also emotional, psychological, and social ones. Acts that do not lead to reproduction can still strengthen relationships, provide emotional support, and contribute to the happiness of both partners. There are other factors to consider in judging the morality of sexual acts besides their reproductive potential.

          "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” (paragraph 16)

          The pope gets into nitty-gritty details surrounding the hardships that may arise from childbearing. However, his idea of people creating a fixed timetable for intercourse is simply weird and showing a lack of good sense. Further, the rhythm method has resulted in many children being born. If there were statistically little difference between the effectiveness of natural family planning and artificial methods of contraception, then that would only make Roman Catholic teaching on this issue redundant. Regardless, it has concerned itself with lofty sounding ideas that fail to translate into effective or feasible solutions in the real world. Rome's teaching that contraception in some way violates a higher moral order is a theoretical concept only, fastidiously clung to with a splendid degree of hubris.

          "Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." (paragraph 17)

          Saying that one course of action leads up to another without adequate demonstration would be the attribution of a false cause. For example, it would be absurd for one to claim that the act of him washing his truck caused it to rain outside if it happened after the fact. Further, any tool can be used in improper or unacceptable ways, opening the door to grave consequences. This sort of reasoning is comparable to the Church of Christ talking point that using musical instruments in worship is a slippery slope for the spread of theological liberalism in churches.

          "...Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. " (paragraph 17)

          A religious organization that has priests who take on vows of mandatory celibacy or teaches as dogma that Mary forever remained a virgin is out of touch with reality. For one thing, creating an environment with exceedingly high expectations when they already are high enough is going to result in moral failure. On the other issue, the Catholic teaching on Mary's virginity goes against the grain of the natural human inclination towards intimacy and the general character of marriage relationships. These sorts of teachings originated from the minds of self-righteous men who kept their heads in the clouds.

          "...Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”  (paragraph 17)

          An effect of the traditional Roman Catholic approach to women and conception is that they can be reduced to baby making machines. It is obvious that "the faithful" are not considered competent to make sound decisions for themselves, taking into account the potential repercussions of their actions. A matter is thus because Rome has specifically dictated it to be thus, not because there are necessarily good reasons behind certain decrees.

       

Roman Catholic Teaching On Contraception, Examined And Refuted

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to evaluate a contentious aspect of Roman Catholic moral theology, particularly the use of contraceptives. The merits of the stance assessed here rest on highly emotional and speculative presuppositions regarding the nature of procreation, which can truly be perplexing. Excerpts from Pope Pius XI's papal encyclical titled Casti Connubii are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "...To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words ‘Increase and multiply,’ is beyond the power of any human law.” (paragraph 8)

          Note that God spoke those words to Adam and Eve, before the world was even populated. That blessing of reproduction after one's own kind has more than since been fulfilled. While large families are not a concept frowned upon in biblical contexts, those who declare such as a "principle end" of marriage do so without divine approval or commandment. Nothing in the original directive of Genesis is said to hold the same weight or necessity today.

          "And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.” (paragraph 53)

          If God is as concerned with couples having children as Rome seems to be, then why did He not simply create us as hermaphrodites? Why would He create man and woman? The approach taken by the pope on this issue is woodenly rigid and short-sighted. It neglects other significant aspects of the marriage bond, which are companionship, mutual support, and love between partners. 

          “Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.” (paragraph 53)

          The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that all forms of contraception are inherently sinful, except for natural family planning. It would have us believe that divorce is not permitted by God, except when it is called an annulment. This is an absurd effort on the part of Rome to arbitrarily dictate what adherents do with their lives.

          “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (paragraph 54)

          At its very best, this can be regarded as a subjective opinion stated in unusually strong terms. It is not clear how preventing the fertilization of an ovum is a "crime" against nature. Further, it is not adequate to say that an organization declares a specific concept to be immoral. The Roman Catholic Church is guilty of promoting groupthink. If the decision to enter into marriage can be left up to the individual, then why should the decision on the number of children to have not also fall under personal discretion?

          "Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” (paragraph 55)

          Citing the church fathers as evidence for a theological position is akin to using historical opinions as the ultimate source of truth, regardless of the reasoning's validity. Moreover, the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition attributes the death of Onan to disobedience to God's Law, not him using a form of contraception: "Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10)."

          "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (paragraph 56)

          Just as God manipulates biology to create life, we manipulate chemistry to responsibly manage it. Further, Roman Catholic theologians would be taken more seriously on this issue if they stopped using deodorant or shaving altogether. After all, natural processes are interfered with in both scenarios. One could make appeals to some vague "natural law" to justify many things even Roman Catholicism would condemn.

          "...Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.” (paragraph 58)

          This is poor life counsel disguised in the language of personal piety. Allowing non-abortive contraception in high-risk situations aligns with the principle of "do no harm." By preventing a potentially dangerous pregnancy, the woman is making a morally responsible choice to protect her own health and well-being.

Debating Ethics: Abortion, Race, and Progressive Views

• Discussion:

          -Following are a series of excerpts with responses to them from an exchange with a progressive democrat. The sort of political ideology which this person has consumed is obviously meant to cause hatred and discord. It is hoped that points made here will prove to be useful in discussing the issues of abortion and race with others: 

          "You may not know it, but thugs is a real word. There are real thugs. You think it has to do with skin color. And that’s the problem: thugs are people who hate with brutality." 

          The skin color of a man is not the prima facie issue. Genetics alone would not be sufficient to determine the likelihood of one committing crimes. There are environmental factors, as well as psychological components, opportunities for education, and sources of influence. Rather than being considered an inherent part of their being, moral problems among black people can be attributed to cultural deficiencies, such as the breakdown of family structures, community cohesion, and personal responsibility. Moreover, critical race theorists oftentimes talk in ways that the abolitionists themselves in all likelihood would have regarded as unlawful. 

          "Like you and Hamas. You’re just an armchair terrorist and insurrectionist. An old bastard thug." 

          Likening people that one merely disagrees with to Hamas is breathtakingly ignorant. That group is comprised of radicals who murder outsiders in the name of global dominance. Just as Hamas terrorists do not really worship any god but the concept of death, so modern progressives worship the self and their own version of reality.

          "And “right to life” is in quotes because it’s a lie you and Craig and the other thugs tell yourselves." 

          We ought to reject any concept of "individual rights" that appeals to our ego. "My body, my choice" does exactly that. Moreover, this sort of thinking is puerile, since it rests on an oversimplified concept of personal property. This is more than a matter of, "I can do whatever I want with this. It is mine and no one can take it away from me." With personal liberty comes responsibility toward oneself and his fellow countrymen, including the unborn.

          "In a free democracy, you won’t let women of child bearing age determine their life." 

           False. Women of child bearing age determine their life by choosing whether to become pregnant. Parents have an obligation to care for their children by virtue of the inherent nature of such an interpersonal relationship. 

          "Because you don’t care about life. Evangelicals didn’t care about life until they needed a better political plan than opposing desegregation." 

          This is deceptive manipulation. Pregnancy centers are available to women in need of them as well as adoption agencies for adults who want to take care of abandoned children. For the record, it was mostly the Southern Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and filibustered civil rights legislation. 

          "Do yourself a favor and learn something for the first time in 40 years: look up Paul Weyrich." 

          The opinions of Weyrich do not carry any inherent authority over anyone else. 

          “Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” through most of the 1970s, and there is little in the history of evangelicalism to suggest that abortion would become a point of interest." 

          Granting that, the shift only proves that people can be wrong about an issue and change their minds when presented with more data. It is irrelevant to the question of the morality of abortion itself, since truth is not determined by popularity. The state of medical research has changed dramatically since the 1970s.

          "Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being." 

          Even if the Bible is silent on the topic of abortion, it does not follow that God has granted women permission to get them. Further, Scripture implicitly recognizes that a "developing embryo or fetus" has personhood (Judges 13:3-5; Jeremiah 1:4-5; Luke 1:44). That would indicate the biblical authors accepted the notion that human life begins at conception, challenging the morality of terminating life in the womb. Finally, it is inconsistent for liberal progressives to address the Bible's teaching on abortion, since they generally regard it as nothing but an outdated collection of writings by uneducated men.

          "In the course of the first session, Weyrich tried to make a point to his religious right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Remember, he said animatedly, that the religious right did not come together in response to the Roe decision." 

          The claim about the Roe v. Wade decision is imprecise. While it is true that the religious right did not initially form in response to that Supreme Court ruling, it was later used as a significant rallying point. Further, many women were involved in that movement from its early days.

          "No, Weyrich insisted, what got the movement going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies, including a ban on interracial dating that the university maintained until 2000." 

          Even if there was a federal piece of legislation drafted and signed into law allowing for abortions in certain contexts (i.e. cases of rape, incest, and when a woman's life is in danger), that still would not be enough for modern-day progressive democrats. As an additional point, their ideology is not progressive in the usual sense of the term, since they actually want to take us back to a culture comparable to ancient Greece and Rome.