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, the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of promoting groupthink. If the decision to enter into marriage can be left up to the individual, then the decision on the number of children to have also falls under personal discretion. It is really that simple.

          "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 saying that we should believe it because others believe it or it has been around a long time. The beliefs of such men should be tested to see whether they withstand scrutiny. 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 itself 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.

A Fatal Flaw Of Jehovah's Witnesses Christology (Unitarianism)

          Jesus Christ stated that the greatest demonstration of love is giving up one's own life on behalf of others (John 15:13). That is precisely what He did for us when He made atonement for our sins on the cross. Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God. In order to remain consistent with their theology, they must accept the idea of a creature doing a greater act of love than the Creator Himself because it was the former who laid down His own life in our place. The Trinity is the solution to this dilemma. If Jesus Christ is the second person of the Godhead, then it is God Himself who has made the greatest possible demonstration of love.

Catholic Asceticism And Monastic Vows: Humble Devotion Or Self-Righteous Folly?

          Monks and nuns who take vows of poverty, abstinence from marriage, and obedience believe that such practices bring them closer to God. Their lifestyle is touted as one of self-denial or self-sacrifice, reflecting Christ-like love. Monastic vows are seen as liberating disciplines that help individuals transcend earthly distractions and focus on spiritual growth. This way of life is claimed to help build virtue and resilience against temptation. Catholic asceticism is renunciation of material goods and conveniences for spiritual benefit. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Thus asceticism according to the definition of St. Jerome, is an effort to attain true perfection, penance being only an auxiliary virtue thereto." 

          In fulfilling monastic vows, people often adopt a lifestyle that includes varying degrees of seclusion. In fact, some monastic communities emphasize complete withdrawal from societal contact. In general, these men and women thrive in a strictly controlled environment and with like-minded believers. The intention behind this is to become a better person and align oneself more closely with Christ's sacrifice. Historically speaking, upon Constantine and Licinius signing the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, certain believers found it more difficult to live out their convictions. As a result, they excluded themselves from ordinary life and fled to deserts to preserve themselves from perceived pagan influence. 

          Various examples of Roman Catholic asceticism include painful bodily mortifications, extreme fasting, sleeping on hard surfaces, and spending time in solitude to spend time with God. Dominic Loricatus was a Benedictine monk who whipped himself 300,000 times in six days while reciting the Psalms. Catherine of Siena scourged herself three times a day with an iron chain. Thérèse of Lisieux scourged herself with all her strength and speed, smiling at the crucifix through her tears. While these specific acts do not represent what every monk or nun does, they nonetheless are seen as partaking in the obedience of Christ. This extreme way of living was also found in Jewish sects like the Essenes, helping to shape the formation of similar practices in Christianity.

          Monastic vows and ascetic ways of living are both unnecessary hindrances to one's normal existence and unprofitable in reaching the goals for which such practices are said to be carried out. Jesus never told His followers to isolate themselves from civilization, which can actually drive people insane. There is no biblical teaching about quietness and solitude bringing us more into favor with God. There is nothing good about poverty, and putting oneself into that state is foolish and senseless. While our actions can have unfavorable consequences to us in various contexts (e.g. preaching the gospel can result in persecution), Jesus Christ never instructed His followers to go out of their way to put themselves into a state of suffering for its own sake. Such thinking is plainly delusional.

          Consider the following excerpt from St. Mary's Monastery as an illustration as to the ridiculousness of this way of living, on the Benedictine vow of obedience: "It is a childlike abandonment of one’s own judgment and will to God through the representatives he has placed over us." However, accepting tasks blindly, based solely on faith, without questioning one's own ability to carry them out, is wholly unrealistic. God has not called us to fulfill these tasks or promised us anything when it comes to them, which is quite unlike how He dealt with people like the patriarchs. Consequently, this sort of living is not of faith which bends its knees before Him, but more so akin to jumping off a cliff just because someone else said to do it. Further, God generously provides us with many things for our delight and happiness (1 Timothy 6:17).

          In Colossians 2:20-23, Paul addressed false teachings and ascetic practices infiltrating the early Christian community. The apostle emphasized the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and the futility of human regulations for spiritual growth. As a means of obtaining a just position before God, He is infinitely worth more than holding to customs that can only bolster human pride:

          "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations?" (Colossians 2:20)

          Paul asked as a rhetorical question why members of the audience to whom his epistle was written would take on practices of radical abstinence from earthly things. Spiritual transformation should lead to a different way of living, one that is not bound by legalistic standards. The human body has temporal value, so trying to obtain perfection by the flesh is an exercise of futility. Why endure ascetic practices if they are not necessary for survival or well-being?

          "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle." (Colossians 2:21)

          What the Apostle Paul fought against was the very heart of monastic vows and asceticism. Isolation from people and things is not going to improve the condition of a lost soul. Thus, nuns and monks are not at all worthy of praise, but pity.

          "which all concern things which perish with the using-according to the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Colossians 2:22)

          The source of such ideas is not God Himself, but man. They are not authoritative or even beneficial to a Christian, not being endorsed by Paul or Christ Himself.

          "These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:23)

          Even if one seems to have made a wise decision by secluding himself from secular society or abstains from material goods, that in and of itself does not reflect his true standing with God. He did all of that on his own accord, not by divine commandment or authorization. That man is not as humble as he may seem because he is not actually serving God in doing the sort of things that he does. While monasteries have been a force in the world for a certain measure of good, such as in the preservation of biblical manuscripts-regarded in the medieval world as a form of heavenly service-that man's vows and asceticism are as dung before his Creator (Philippians 3:8).

History As Therapy

          History can be a powerful form of therapy. By learning about past events, we can understand the mistakes and successes of those who came before us. This helps us to see our own challenges in a new light and find comfort in knowing that others have faced similar situations throughout history, creating a sense of continuity and shared human experience.

          Studying history provides us with valuable lessons. We learn about resilience from those who overcame great difficulties, sometimes against seemingly insurmountable odds. We see the consequences of actions and decisions, which can guide us in making better choices in our own lives. This knowledge can empower us to feel more in control of our lives and encourage us to approach challenges with a greater sense of agency and confidence.

          Reflecting on history can also promote healing. By acknowledging past injustices and understanding their impact, we can work toward forgiveness and reconciliation. This process helps individuals and communities to move forward, fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society. In this sense, history serves as both a mirror and a guide, helping us grow and heal by learning from the experiences of those who came before us.

          History fosters a sense of connection and belonging. By exploring our heritage and shared past, we build a stronger identity and deepen our appreciation for the diverse cultures and traditions that shape our world. This connection to history can provide comfort, strength, and a sense of purpose, enriching our lives and helping us navigate the present with greater confidence and a clearer sense of who we are.

          Finally, history can inspire hope for the future. By seeing the progress humanity has made over time through inventions and innovations, it reminds us that positive change is possible in this world. Through understanding our past, we can gain the wisdom and courage to create a brighter tomorrow. Moreover, we as Christians can look forward to the second coming of Christ, in which He will perfectly resolve all the problems that currently plague mankind. This ultimate hope provides a profound sense of optimism and assurance as we face the future.

Historical Consciousness: Western Religions' Pursuit Of Meaning In Time

The great religions of the West, also seeking to escape from the animal world of Again-and-Again, found an opposite path. While Hindus and Buddhists sought ways out of history, Christianity and Islam sought ways into history. Instead of promising escape from experience, these sought meaning in experience.  Christianity and Islam were both rooted in Judaism, and all three revealed a dramatic shift from a world of cycles to a world of history.

The Greek gods, timeless as Olympus, had not exhorted people to remember their past. But Judaism was oriented to the past, a historical religion in a sense quite alien to the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the Confucian. "Blessed is the nation," sang the Psalmist, "whose God is the Lord, and the people who he hath chosen for his inheritance." God's purpose for the Jews was disclosed in the past recorded in Sacred Scripture. By recalling the favors and the tribulations that God has visited on them, Jews discovered and remembered their mission as a chosen people. For Jews, remembering their past was the way to remember their God. Scripture told the history of the world from creation, and Jewish holidays were celebrations or reenactments of the past. The Sabbath every week was a reminder of the six days of Creation and God's gift of the seventh day of rest. The Jewish Passover celebrated the coming out from Egypt, marked annually by the Haggadah, the telling of the story. While the Foolish Son of the Passover liturgy saw the Haggadah as a story of what happened to "them," the Wise Son realized that he himself was among those whom the Lord brought out. In this sense, Judaism was emphatically past-oriented but also ant-historical. The Scriptures were read to reinforce what the Jews already knew.

The Jews began and still begin their calendar from the traditional date of the Creation. The historic mission of Israel as the chosen people was established by a particular event, God's covenant with Abraham. On His side, God agreed to be the God for Abraham and all his descendants, and promised them the land of Canaan, while the people of Israel agreed to worship Him alone and obey His commandments. The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, chronicles the making of this historic Covenant and its fulfillment in the delivery of the Laws of Moses on Mt. Sanai. Christian theologians called that the Old Covenant, because they believed that Jesus came to set up a new and better covenant between God and all humankind. This explains "Old Testament" and "New Testament" to describe the two parts of the Bible, for "testament" derives from a Latin mistranslation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Both the Creation and the Covenant were more traditional than historical. Although the God of Israel was a universal God, still the religion of Israel, the chosen people, remained tribal. Its laws and customs were substantially confined to the people who were supposed to have a common descent.

Christianity was a historical religion in a new sense. Its essence and its meaning came from a unique event, the birth and life of Jesus. Firmly rooted in the Jewish tradition, Jesus (a Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, meaning Savior) was circumcised and confirmed according to Jewish custom, and preached and taught as a wandering rabbi. The basic Scripture of Christianity-the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-offers chronological biographies of Jesus, with accounts of the life, death, and resurrection.

Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers: A History of Man's Search to Know His World & Himself , p. 566-567

The Harmful Nature Of Presumption

"Presumption is a fire-work made up of pride and foolhardiness. It is indeed like a heavy house built upon slender crutches. Like dust, which men throw against the wind, it flies back in their faces, and makes them blind."

Thomas Adams, cited in the Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary

On Ideas Of Progress

"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think that if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 28-29

Refuting The Mormons On The Burning Of The Bosom

         "…you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (Doctrine & Covenants 9:8)

         Mormons believe this strange sensation to be the state of one who receives a message from God. It is hard for those who have experienced this emotional state to describe with words. It has been likened to burning in one's thorax, and accompanied with a perception of peace. Mormons claim that the occurrence of this feeling is divine confirmation of their message. They commonly cite James 1:5 to give credence to this notion.

         Genesis 8:21 records God Himself as saying that man is wicked from the days of his youth. He does not have to be made that way because that is his default position. Man finds pleasure in rebelling against his own Maker. He has to be taught how to act righteously, which implies that our passions are not a good standard for accepting truth.

         Proverbs 14:12 says that the way of death appeals to our senses. That flatly contradicts any idea of trusting a burning sensation, which makes us feel comfortable. Just because something seems good to us, does not mean that it really is. Our current emotional state does not confirm whether we have heard from God. Relying on our own feelings to know what is right will only lead us away from God, from which true wisdom flows.

         Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as being thoroughly evil. The effects of sin on the human heart cover his whole being. Our emotions or feelings are not a reliable guide in discerning truth from error, which undercuts any idea of burning in the bosom.

         Ecclesiastes 9:3 characterizes human life in this world as being filled with evil and madness. Our hearts routinely lead us down this destructive path. Thus, the burning of the bosom sensation upheld by Mormons is of no avail to us in seeking out the truth of a matter.

         James 1:5 is concerned with praying to God for wisdom, not trusting in one-self for some internal confirmation about a religious text. Further, it is doubtful that Mormons would do the same for the Bible or the sacred book of any other religion. Finally, this sort of appeal is useless, since the Book of Mormon does not even teach most of Mormon theology.

Refuting The Mormon Doctrine Of Eternal Progression

        "...in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p. 420-421)

        A fundamental aspect of Mormon theology is the belief in the potential for human beings to become gods themselves. This doctrine suggests a progression from mortality to godhood. Individuals who follow God's commandments can attain exaltation and become just like Him. However, consider the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 12:7:

        "And the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

        This passage emphasizes the transient nature of human life and the finality of death. The physical body returns to the earth and the human soul returns to its Creator. It underscores a clear distinction between the divine and the mortal, challenging the notion that humans can progress to godhood.

        By stating that the spirit returns to God, Ecclesiastes 12:7 implies that human destiny is to be with God in an eternal state, not to become gods themselves. The verse reinforces the historic Judeo-Christian understanding of the afterlife and divine-human relationship. It does not include the idea of humans achieving godhood.

        Thus, the Mormon idea of human exaltation to godhood stands in contradiction to the biblical teaching found in Ecclesiastes 12:7. It emphasizes the separation between God and humanity. The ultimate return of the human spirit is to Him, without any further divine progression. The belief in human divinization as proposed by Mormonism is inconsistent with the theological implications of this verse.

        Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." This text emphasizes the immutable nature of Jesus Christ. In the context of refuting Mormonism’s idea of eternal progression, it suggests that Jesus, and by extension God, does not change or evolve. If God remains eternally the same, the notion of humans progressing to become gods is incompatible because it implies a change in divine status.

        1 Timothy 6:15-16 refers to God as the "only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light." The emphasis here is on God's unique sovereignty and eternal immortality. It implies that His divine attributes are exclusive, not shared or attainable by others. This directly opposes the Mormon belief that humans can achieve godhood.