So now, when someone, or something, goes against these truths, it is the Church’s duty to investigate their claims, take them under consideration, and then make a decision on whether this is one of God’s natural laws. But if the same claim gets made again and again with no new evidence, should the Church have to arrive at the same answer again and again? Do you really think contraception is a new thing? Sure, back in the day it was unreliable but the morality behind it isn’t affected by its efficiency. (In fact, one could even make the claim that condoms do a GOOD job of a BAD thing) The Church has seen this before and has lent an ear to the cries from the 60’s, but has since made a decision.
So back in 1968, just 3 years after the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical (a papal letter to all bishops) called Humanae Vitae (translates to Human Life, go figure) in response to questions about a “new Church stance on modern issues” (such as birth control) a result of people contorting what Vatican II said to what they wanted it to. The following is an excerpt from that encyclical, paragraph 17. Be mindful as you read, this was written in 1968 (when the divorce rate was only 30%) and to the whole world (not just America).
“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. 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. 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.Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
Back in
1968, the Pope (a tired, old man who has “no place worrying about what goes on
in your bedroom”) predicted a loosening of societal morals, and increase in
infidelity, the objectification (to make less than human; only a tool or item
to be possessed) of women, and the state-imposed contraception (including but
not limited to: condoms, the pill, sterilization as seen in some other
countries, and abortion). And empirical
data over the past 40 years has only vindicated his prediction. Uncanny how some old man way over in Rome
could so accurately describe what would happen in America over the next century
if contraception became a social norm.
If people could predict the economy with this sort of accuracy, they’d
be put in charge. But people have biases
against the Church. I digress. This accuracy
comes from the Church thinking long and hard on this matter, praying about it,
and coming to a decision on what is truth, and sticking to it until sufficient
cause is brought against it, but even then, the old truth isn’t just dropped.
This is because a truth cannot become untrue, for then it was never true to
begin with. But if sufficient cause is
brought against a known truth, don’t lose the old truth, but rather try to
properly understand the old truth to accept this new data. You don’t drop Newton’s laws of gravity
simply because it doesn’t work in the atomic or cosmic scales. There is just more to gravity than is defined
by Newton’s law. Newton’s laws, therefore,
aren’t wrong, but rather a simplification (due to its specific use in the
normal realm of human experience) of a much grander law that we don’t
understand…yet. The excerpt I provided
is just a taste. Pope Paul VI provides
his reasoning for his claims in his encyclical, so if you wish to read that,
feel free. If you want a better
explanation without reading it, I’m sorry, but that is like asking an
Electrical Engineer to explain how a Synchronous 3-phase Generator works. I could tell you what it does, and
technically how it does it, but you will only understand the what, and not the
how nor how I got to the what. But to
attempt a short summary of the logic (I remind you again, unless you read the
whole document, my argument will seem lacking, and that’s only because it is),
I provide the following: A married
couple (not discussing what that entails this time round) has sex with two
resulting effects. The unification of
the two souls (two become one) and procreation.
To deny either of those effects is to go against natural law. We must be open to both. Condoms and other birth control deny the
second effect, ergo, against the natural law.
But Dan, does that mean a barren women shouldn’t have sex, for she
cannot procreate? No, for as seen in
Scripture both elderly women and women considered barren are graced with
children, so naturally, this could still be an effect. Just as not all sex has to result in a child,
it just must be open to it.
In reference to the African AIDS situation, I will explain the church’s view in
an analogy. If you concede that in
normal conditions, birth control is morally, socially (for the good of a
society), and personally wrong, then you can call it normally evil. But Dan, the Church allows killing in
self-defense if there is NO OTHER option.
That is an extreme case; is not Africa’s plea similar, an extreme?
Valid, but the key there is NO OTHER option.
African’s have another option.
It’s called self-discipline. Let me illuminate my claim with 2
analogies: Chickenpox and fitness.
Chickenpox. If you've ever had a chickenpox, you could
tell me if it is a good or bad idea to itch the bumps. The answer is bad. The absolute best thing you can do for chickenpox
is let it sit. There is no known cure
for the chickenpox. All treatment is
aimed at treating symptoms, not the disease. All things that supposedly are
treatments to the disease take a similar amount of time to take effect and tend
to give you awful side-effects. Even if
you get over it in a week, you are permanently predisposed to have shingles so
it has long lasting effects as well. The
worst part of chickenpox, however, is that you must not only wait it out, but
you also shouldn’t scratch. Scratching,
if deep enough, can cause scarring. It
also opens up the rash to be more easily infected, which could lead to deeper
health issues. This is why you see
little kids with oven mitts taped to their hands by their mothers, so they
don’t scratch, for the young’s will is weak, as stated above in Humanae Vitae.
Dan, what does chickenpox have to do with AIDS in Africa? Well, if you haven’t picked up on where this
analogy is going yet, let me try and illustrate. AIDS is like an annoying rash:
easy to transfer (most common from contact, but there are other ways), predisposes
you to later health issues, no known cure, just treatment of symptoms. The major differences are the contact must be
sexual and AIDS is more deadly. The idea
behind condoms is the mother putting mittens on her child to keep the young one
from causing lasting damage when he gives into the urge to scratch (giving into
the urge for extra-marital sex). Seems
like a good enough idea, right. Well if
you conceded earlier that condoms, in the normal, are wrong, than I have a sad
truth for you. One the church figured out a long time ago; you’ve probably
heard it. The ends NEVER justify the
means. (I know only Siths deal in absolutes, but I mean, thats just a book/movie) Just because hitting the annoying
kid in your class (bad) would shut him up and stop him from annoying you (good), doesn’t
mean hitting him is a good thing to do.
And you conceded the means (birth control) is not good, therefore, no
matter the end, it isn’t good. Note: if
you didn’t concede birth control as normally wrong (case made in first half of post), then there is no point in
haggling over Africa because it is dependent on whether birth control is
normally wrong, good, or neutral.
But what kind of person would I be if I just
shot down others ideas without providing a suitable substitute. Here is what the Church proposes, one of the
OTHER options. The same thing the Church
expects for you! How just that the
Church treats their lives just as important as yours. The church just asks that
you keep it in your pants till you’re married.
Don’t "scratch" until you are married. If you don’t scratch, you don’t
need the mittens (condoms). How does that solve the problem? Well, only those married couples where one or
two members of the couple has/have AIDS will have the disease. Couples without it will have AIDS free lives
and children (assuming they still don’t have an extra-marital affair). Any
extra-marital sexual contact will only potentially spread the disease to those
still unaffected. The fact that AIDS spreads to the offspring of those affected
is true whether or not condoms are used, so that point is null and void. If
anything, condoms instill a false sense of invincibility that leads to unknowingly
spreading the disease. They should also
refrain from the archaic and anti-science view that sex with virgins will rid
you of AIDS. 10 bucks says an infected
guy came up with that one. But shouldn’t the couples who have AIDS not have
kids, so they don’t pass on the disease to the next generation? Probably, but that’s up to the parents to
decide. If that is what they wish, then
they can just not have sex. Dan, you
asking all these people to avoid sex is unreasonable and impractical. People
will have extra-marital relations, that’s just a fact of life. Is it?
Is that what fitness trainers tell the obese child who wants to lose
weight? “Sorry boy, but you are always
going to overeat and not exercise, that’s just a fact of life” No!
Why should we apply this self-discipline to our physical health, but not
our sexual health. That’s a double
standard. If you want to put physical health
on the same scale of the proposed sexual health, the following needs to be
true: greater availability of diet pills and other diuretics for the young and
the poor, free shots of insulin in all school vending machines, more affordable
access to Lap-band Surgery and Liposuction, Sensitivity training about the
positive contributions of eating disorders, and give people the option to
execute unwanted obese children. These
just seem absurd, and yet, when you look at the equivalent for sexual health,
it’s what people/the government is providing/demanding of us. Riddle me that.
