Monday, March 12, 2012

Lucia Contraception matters to God

Fr Martin Fox of Bonfire of the Vanities blog talked last week about what this looming battle between the Federal Government of the US and the Catholic Church might mean. He believes something momentous is happening, and that this issue matters very much to God.

If you do not believe in God, or you wonder if he is largely absent from human affairs; if you wonder if the Catholic Church's claims really hold water, consider these events.

Why should this battle even be happening?

Why on this ground--over claims the Catholic Church almost alone makes?

Had this been a battle over abortion or same-sex marriage, then it would not involve claims that are uniquely those of the Catholic Church.

I predict there will be many folks who will, in these events, realize God is validating the Catholic Church--with all her blemishes and wounds--as the visible Body of Christ on earth.

Fellow Catholics, if you have ever wondered about, or doubted, the claims of our Church--if you have wondered about the teaching on contraception, if God really cared about it--then consider this moment. Why would God put his Church on trial over this issue--if it did not matter to him?

Consider what I just wrote. God is choosing to allow his Church to enter into a terrible trial...over contraception. Do you think it possible that this matters quite a lot to God?

I believe that the contraceptive mentality that pervades the West is at the root of many of our modern problems and that is why it matters so much. Contraception encourages immorality; it tells women that sex can be divorced from it procreative function and just to get used to being used, and tells men that women are for pleasure first and commitment, maybe, if you test drive enough of them before you find one you particularly like. Is it any wonder that marriage, so necessary for the nurturing of children, is falling by the wayside?

So yes, contraception matters to God because how men treat women and women treat men is fundamentally changed by neutered sex.

Related link: This Astonishing Moment ~ Bonfire of the Vanities
Required reading on how contraception poisons everything : The Vindication of Humanae Vitae ~ First Things

29 comment(s):

Andrei said...

The so called "pill" is probably the worst catastrophe to strike Western Civilization, made even worse in that it is taking several generations to unfold and wreck its havoc.

It is not a blessing it is a curse

Big Bruv said...

Ah yes, another shinning example of the stupidity of religion and the pure evil that is the Catholic church.

A religion that says Aids is bad but condoms are worse can only be described as evil.

Mind you, I suppose all those priests the Church protects don't need to worry about contraception whilst they are buggering little boys.

Lucia Maria said...

Big Bruv,

An evil act is always worse than an illness. The evil act kills the soul, while as the worst thing an illness can do is kill the body.

As human beings we have the choice to not perform evil acts (ie using condoms within marriage or having sex outside of marriage with or without a condom), but we have no choice as to whether or not we can throw off a physical illness once we have it. An illness is not an act, it is a state.

Big Bruv said...

Using a condom is evil?...are you serious????

While thousands and thousands of people around the world suffer or die from Aids you support a stupid and evil religion that says using a condoms is worse that Aids?

libertyscott said...

Lucia: Genuinely curious question, because I don't know how those with your beliefs reconcile the following.

How do you explain the fact that men have the physical requirement to orgasm regularly as part of the physical anatomy ("overflow" is the point, as semen is produced lifelong and doesn't regulate) from puberty? Do you presume they should have married at this point? Are they expected to wet the bed? Is any alternative between "wet dreams" and coitus within marriage an "evil act"? (I did know a guy whose parents believed that and tied him up and spanked him for it - I am not saying you endorse that, but is that what would be behind this?)

By the way there is choice about throwing off an illness. Humans can choose to develop cures, they can choose to take cures and many illnesses are remedied as a result. Some people choose to die because the cure is worse than the illness, as tragic as that may be.

On your response to Big Bruv, I think it epitomises the difference between your philosophy and that of atheists. For you death appears to not be the worst thing that can happen to a person, it is (presumably) "damnation of the soul" (not trying to be rude, just trying to understand). Am I right?

Is the death of a person better if that person can remain free of an evil act that kills the soul?

In saying "An evil act is always worse than an illness. The evil act kills the soul, while as the worst thing an illness can do is kill the body" it implies that it is better to die than to commit an evil act.

Is this true? If not, how do you reconcile that statement?

JJ said...

Liberty Scott takes the usual route of trying to obscure the issue by asking stupid questions. Not even worth bothering about. Argue with a fool and no one can tell the difference.

Lucia Maria said...

JJ,

We've got to remember that not everyone understands our beliefs. So, while some questions may seem stupid, they do highlight an area that needs to be discussed.

libertyscott said...

JJ: I actually believe that thoughtful Christians are interested in open and honest discussion. I've found this blog to be good for that.

It is very easy to engage in the level you're at, it's the level all too many find easy, and if people with your beliefs just do that, then you'll lose because nobody listens to people who simply insult. If you can't understand the basis for my questions, then I'm sorry but it is difficult to do so in the limited space. I believe Lucia can understand, and I don't expect an instant answer.

Frankly I think it is rather fundamental, because it is surely an obvious target for criticism of the beliefs underlying the post. I don't expect those who hold them would do so lightly or oblivious to that criticism, which I need not point out.

Lucia Maria said...

LibertyScott,

This physical need of men that you speak of can be successfully restrained and diverted. Any man who cannot restrain himself becomes a slave to his sexual desires. Sexologists promote this idea that men have this "physical need", and I'm not disagreeing that it's a strong need, however, it represents a desire that God put into all men to love, and if it's not used for love (true, life-giving love) then you are debasing yourself and enslaving yourself the more you give in to it.

Where there is no conscious control of the body or mind, such as in a dream, then there is no evil act (ie wet dreams are not evil). But, any other conscious form of sex outside of marriage (even masturbation) is, because sex becomes more about you and your urges than you becoming a gift for the other person. There is no other alternative, and masturbation doesn't count. It's incredibly addictive, and unfortunately, those "who have" to engage in it regularly are training themselves to react sexually in a particular way that is detrimental to proper sexual union with a wife.

Joe Q. Public said...

The mentality of people that believe in beings they cannot see is the problem with all of society.
Sex is for pleasure as well as procreation, and condoms save lives as well as allow monogamous/or not couples to control when they have a child. If they even choose to do so..
If you truly believe in an omnipotent deity that holds sway over all of creation then leave the judgement to Him.

Ciaron said...

Wah, wah, wah, Don't judge me you mean Christians.

Pathetic.

Psycho Milt said...

Libertyscott: effectively, the answer is yes, you're meant to wet the bed until married, after which your wife gets to clean it up.

Lucia Maria said...

LibertyScott said, "On your response to Big Bruv, I think it epitomises the difference between your philosophy and that of atheists. For you death appears to not be the worst thing that can happen to a person, it is (presumably) "damnation of the soul" (not trying to be rude, just trying to understand). Am I right?"

For Atheists, death is the end. For Christians, death is the entry into eternal life; either preparing for God's presence, being in God's presence or as far away from God as possible. Where we end up is our choice while we are alive.

What I do while I am alive matters.

It is, of course, impossible not to do evil while alive. Thankfully, God forgives us, if we ask Him to and use the means He gave us to do so.

So, the worst thing that could happen to me is not death, but eternal death. Ending up in a place far from God when I die. Because I live forever, I just get to choose where I spend eternity.

Lucia Maria said...

Joe,

Boy, are you going to be surprised when New Year's Day 2013 comes around!

kowtow said...

joe q surprise on new years day,te he he. Just been on his site. Mayan calandar ,crystal skull and him having a go at priestly vestments. What a prat!

bug bruv, Catholic Church "pure evil"
hyperbole?bigotry?queer obsession?

dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reggie said...

I bet your mother was always telling you not to blow your nose on your pyjama pants.

Big Bruv said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Big Bruv said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dad4justice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I.M Fletcher said...

As far as some statements that have been made over the Church preferring disease to contraception, I would like to say that I do not think condoms stop AIDS. But don't take my word for it -

‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”

libertyscott said...

Lucia: Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. I believe Psycho Milt summarised the first point. It may seem trivial, but it is important to understand the consistency in your philosophy (which is certainly there in respect of that point). The key appears to be that sex is meant to be entirely altruistic (in the original sense of the word). Indeed, some argue Christianity is entirely about that.

The point on death and death of soul was well made too, thanks.

My next question is what role do you think the state should have in relation to any of this? It is one thing to promote and encourage people to adopt this perspective, quite another to have the state require it, or punish those who do differently.

I'm unclear as to why it is "impossible to not do evil acts" when alive? If evil acts require conscious volition, surely it is possible for people to avoid them, unless people don't know what they are. Is this just a matter of so-called "human frailty" that everyone makes mistakes?

Finally, is the rule around personal attacks in the comments on this blog, not rigorously enforced?

ZenTiger said...

Yes, I thought Big Bruv's opening comment was rude and probably should have been removed to avoid his karma.

We tend to more rigorously enforce deletion of rude comments made against the blog authors, but when time permits might go an clean up a thread, as I now have done.

ZenTiger said...

Big Bruv, you've attempted to reduced a discussion on contraception (including the Pill) to "people are dying from AIDS, condoms is the only answer"

Funny you should say:

While thousands and thousands of people around the world suffer or die from Aids...

and then decide the Catholic Church must be evil, when perhaps a better view is that accepting the condom programs don't actually work because they only reduce chances, not remove them. The suggestion of abstinence outside of marriage, and staying in a faithful and committed relationship might be harder to grasp, but it's a better long term solution.

And you may care to read my latest post where people that don't disclose they have aids before engaging in sex are basically criminals. Another good start to fixing the problem. Point out that such people are acting immorally and qualify for your "evil" label for better than a Church preaching fidelity and faithfulness and restraint (no matter how you spin it).

Lucia Maria said...

LibertyScott,

Psycho Milt's crass comment, while typical of what some people believe, plays to the myth that if men do not ejaculate, they will explode... or something. Sure, someone who is addicted to masturbation might feel this way, but, it's abnormal to be addicted in this way. Or, more to the point, we were not designed to be slaves to our sexual desires to the point where they become a physical need that MUST be met, much in the way that if an alcoholic doesn't get a drink they go crazy or whatever. We may as well be animals with no higher faculties at all in that way of thinking.

"The key appears to be that sex is meant to be entirely altruistic...

Yes and no. Through the giving of yourself for another, you receive more than if you take your pleasure for yourself only.

What role does the state have in all of this? Hmmmm, good question. For starters, the state should not be involved in the subsidisation, distribution or promotion of contraceptives. At this point, it's far too involved, to the level of promoting contraceptive use to school children.

We can see how well that's been working - the number of young women who have babies in their teenage years has been steadily increasing. The contraceptive message, while it may have started out as a desire to minimise the consequences of sex seems to have had the supposed unintended consequence of encouraging early sexual activity by children.

(Maybe a misguided attempt to save the mothers of the land from having to wash their sons' sheets several times a week! (Joking, btw.))

Lucia Maria said...

"I'm unclear as to why it is "impossible to not do evil acts" when alive? If evil acts require conscious volition, surely it is possible for people to avoid them, unless people don't know what they are. Is this just a matter of so-called "human frailty" that everyone makes mistakes?"

Yep, it's human frailty, in other words, concupiscence, which means that we as human beings will choose evil rather than good because we feel like it. The conscience is activated at first with an evil act of a particular type, but eventually it is silenced. All of us have an inbuilt sense of what is and isn't evil, it's just that as the conscience is silenced and the justifications build up, it's easy to forget what we once knew.

When I say "evil", what I really mean is an absence of good, just as darkness is only absence of light. There are many degrees to this absence, just as darkness is not total, many times evil acts are not total.

They quite often start small and build up as well. So, the young child who learns to lie over trivial things, may eventually to be the consummate liar when they reach adulthood. Lying would be so much of a part of them that they can no longer see anything wrong with it, and they easily do it again and again without qualm.

"Finally, is the rule around personal attacks in the comments on this blog, not rigorously enforced?"

No, not yet. I've noticed a number of our commenters attack one another when they come here and so am trying to do something about it. I probably won't delete all personal attacks - I just haven't quite worked out where the line is yet. If you feel attacked yourself, let me know, and I may delete the offender. As for attacks against myself, I tend to let them stand, unless they are disgusting or over the top.

libertyscott said...

Lucia, thanks for that. I don't want to prolong this comments thread at risk of it becoming more fundamental than the original post. Psycho Milt's core point about the overflow of men appears to be valid, and we need not go further into that.

As fascinating as the implications of your philosophy for sex are, I wont go into that here, as it isn't my primary interest.

My biggest interest are the two most fundamental points:

1. The view of "good" and "evil".
2. The role of the state in addressing, presumably, evil.

Second point first, it's easy for a libertarian to agree with a Christian about the state not subsidising anything or the sale of any goods or services. That means you wouldn't be forced to pay for contraception, and schools wouldn't be forced to offer it, etc. Indeed there are Christian libertarians. Within that context, religion and other philosophies are free to be disseminated, and people are free to choose to believe or not in whatever they wish.

My bigger question is how much further do you go. At one extreme you would argue for the theocratic approach whereby all laws replicate your view of "good and evil", which I'd regard as repulsive as Iran's regime, at the other is laws that only dileate between individual consent (people can do as they wish, as long as they respect the same in others, meaning people can only act on the bodies and property of others with the consent of those others).

I read elsewhere on this blog that you'd "ban contraception", which isn't in the latter camp at all. I don't know if you still hold this view, because it hardly indicates respect for people having free will or any sort of sovereignty over their bodies (let alone their souls). That is rather fundamental.

On the first point, I don't believe people are whim worshippers inherently. I don't believe people will choose evil over good, yet there is still a question of definition. You say we have an "inbuilt sense of what is and isn't evil", which of course can be confusing for the sociopath. If people will choose evil because we "feel like it", but inherently "know what is good", then it seems incredibly subjective and detached from values, objectives or reason.

It implies that people need not seek external guidance as their conscience will provide all the guidance they need. When they ignore it, is when "evil" happens. Yet this isn't useful for guiding what laws should exist. Indeed, are there not people who would claim their conscience drove them to undertake certain behaviour that is more objectively evil?

Lucia Maria said...

LibertyScott,

How much further would I go? Don't know. I haven't developed a manifesto as I'm not running a political party - just a blog. So, it's down to an issue by issue basis with the proviso that I could change my mind if I think more about stuff.

For instance, I could change my mind about actually banning contraception (I would probably only ban abortificants, which would include the pill, but not ban condoms). This is because innocent life is lost with regards to an abortificant, and therefore the right a person has to sovereignty over their body is trumped by the life of the developing baby. Murder of the innocent is always wrong.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.