M
MarkRome
Guest
That is not a “given”. The world is not overpopulated.
Avoiding jargon, please can you explain "being open to life" to a non-Catholic?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
A just reason is one that is grave or serious. The Catechism cites for No. 2370 (Periodic continence):
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Humanae Vitae, No. 16 Excerpt:
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-..._jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Economic reasons, even in the past, for example during the world wars and depressions.
Last edited:
Yes, that is true. I would even go so far as to say that the present situation with COVID-19 — not so much the disease itself, but having to go to the hospital to give birth, with all the risks any hospital stay entails these days — could justify waiting until this is all over, to consider having a child.HomeschoolDad:
Economic reasons, even in the past, for example during the world wars and depressions.
I’ve been mulling over this a bit, and I think I’d say this : from a Christian (and Catholic) perspective, I don’t think one can understand the Church’s stance on sexuality if one doesn’t realise that, for Christians, there is no “God-free zone” in life, no place one can fence off and keep to oneself as if what happens inside the fence didn’t matter to God.
From a Christian perspective, God makes a claim on our whole lives, for us to surrender them in His hands. As harsh as it may sound, we also believe that it is in this complete surrendering of the self that we are mysteriously given our true selves, that we really and truly find ourselves.
Sex is a part of that, and a not unimportant one.
The thing is, is doesn’t depend on sensations and feelings. If you are having sex - sex as the Church understands it, that is (consensual) sex between two married people of opposite genders - then you are sharing in God’s life-creating joy. Within that framework, the only thing that cuts off a couple from it is contraception.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
@kapp19 As somebody else pointed out earlier in the thread, I suspect that the main thing I have to do is immerse myself in natural law theory and the works of Aquinas. I think your argument possibly would make a lot more sense to me if I were approaching the question from that background. Although I am not a Protestant, I have always lived in a society whose ways of thinking are still very much shaped by Protestantism. Thomism and natural law are simply not a part of our worldview. But I am open to trying to understand this way of seeing things.
Yes, that is the main problem with situational ethics, the ethics of doing whatever shows the most love. I have even heard it argued that an extreme example could be a paedophile who claims that, situationally, it could be right to have sex with children, since, for that paedophile, it may be a way of showing love. Now, this is clearly an extreme example, and one which could be rebutted quite easily, not least because it is illegal and a taboo in most societies. But one can certainly see that in areas such as abortion, euthanasia, IVF, and stem cell science, one could easily make the case that any of these things may or may not be morally good if one rejects deontological approaches to ethics:
- Your 12-year-old daughter is pregnant after being raped and does not want to carry a rapist’s baby to full term, experience childbirth, and then either have to bring up a rapist’s baby or give up her own baby at birth. Situationally, abortion would seem like the loving thing to do.
- Your 95-year-old father is now blind, deaf, completely paralysed, and suffering from dementia, having previously been a special forces commando, Nobel prize-winning physicist, and amateur pianist and painter. Situationally, euthanasia would seem like the loving thing to do.
I am setting out with an open mind. I am not looking to reject anything until I have explored it as thoroughly as possible. If you have always been a Catholic, or have been a Catholic for a long time, all this probably makes complete sense to you. If you are coming at this from a non-religious background, it can all seem quite baffling. I get the impression that some people genuinely want to use this forum to help outsiders in their quest to understand Catholicism better, while others seem to want to use it to argue among themselves.
K
kapp19
Guest
Yes, you’re on to it.
After the “primordial precept” of morals - do good, avoid evil - there are three fundamental precepts of the natural law… self-preservation, generation and rearing of offspring, and the search for truth in common life. From these fundamental imperatives flow everything else, the “boundaries” of which are marked out by the precepts of justice, the Ten Commandments, regulating behavior among rational beings (including between us and God). The “data” for how this is worked out “in motion” comes from looking at how human beings are actually ordered (like, “what’s a stomach for?” “digestion”, etc.), in their individual powers and faculties, and as a whole individual being.
After the “primordial precept” of morals - do good, avoid evil - there are three fundamental precepts of the natural law… self-preservation, generation and rearing of offspring, and the search for truth in common life. From these fundamental imperatives flow everything else, the “boundaries” of which are marked out by the precepts of justice, the Ten Commandments, regulating behavior among rational beings (including between us and God). The “data” for how this is worked out “in motion” comes from looking at how human beings are actually ordered (like, “what’s a stomach for?” “digestion”, etc.), in their individual powers and faculties, and as a whole individual being.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Forgive me, but the question seemed if not quite a trick question, then a question to which I was supposed to be able to give a certain answer. The fact is that I have not really given much thought to the function or functions of the digestive system. Possibly it has only one function, but possibly it has many functions. Given that the question is seemingly related to a natural law approach to the functions of different organs and systems of the body, I don’t know what the “correct” answer is. Unless you include all the ways in which we sense food as part of the digestive system, I cannot really think of a function other than the function of eating.
Yes, even from a non-religious perspective, I think I could agree with that, certainly.
Of course, when we talk about the population of the planet, we are talking about future planning. I don’t think any sane person would advocate culling living human beings and nor would any sane person look on with glee as disease or natural disaster kill people by the hundreds of thousands.
I think that is no doubt a very useful perspective to have, especially if one has not been used to thinking about God.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
That doesn’t follow at all.
V
Vico
Guest
The unitive meaning is not lead to but maintained in each act: always maintaining the two meanings.
M
MarkRome
Guest
We actually have an underpopulation in many parts of the world. Overcrowding is a problem, but that’s not overpopulation. We have enough sustainable resources for far more people than we currently have. The more people we have the more we also produce. Overpopulation is a myth.
L
Lara
Guest
Except we don’t live in the future. We live in the present and if overpopulation were a problem, a reduction of the population by any means would result in the alleviation of that problem in the present. But it doesn’t. People have been saying we have too many people for years.
K
knightfall
Guest
Hi Emily
Here’s a history of how the myth developed.
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life...ation-and-the-folks-who-brought-it-to-you.cfm
I’m not convinced he’s right about overpopulation. A quick Google search on the “overpopulation myth” will show dissenting views.
Here’s a history of how the myth developed.
http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life...ation-and-the-folks-who-brought-it-to-you.cfm
K
knightfall
Guest
Hi Emily
See this article, for example, an excerpt of which reads: The Vindication of Humanae Vitae by Mary Eberstadt | Articles | First Things
“Although it is largely Catholic thinkers who have connected the latest empirical evidence to the defense of Humanae Vitae ’s predictions, during those same forty years most of the experts actually producing the empirical evidence have been social scientists operating in the secular realm. As sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox emphasized in a 2005 essay: “The leading scholars who have tackled these topics are not Christians, and most of them are not political or social conservatives. They are, rather, honest social scientists willing to follow the data wherever it may lead.”
Consider, as Wilcox does, the Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof. In a well-known 1996 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics , Akerlof explained in the language of modern economics why the sexual revolution—contrary to common prediction, especially prediction by those in and out of the Church who wanted the teaching on birth control changed—had led to an increase in both illegitimacy and abortion. In another work published in the Economic Journal ten years ago, he traced the empirical connections between the decrease in marriage and married fatherhood for men—both clear consequences of the contraceptive revolution—and the simultaneous increase in behaviors to which single men appear more prone: substance abuse, incarceration, and arrests, to name just three.“
God bless
As many on this thread have already pointed out, and as you note in your original post, the procreative and unitive aspects should not be separated from sex. The “why” for this was spelt out in Humae Vitae. Pope Paul VI made very specific predictions about what would occur in society if sex and it’s likely consequence, children, were separated. What’s interesting is to see the analysis of these predictions decades later.
See this article, for example, an excerpt of which reads: The Vindication of Humanae Vitae by Mary Eberstadt | Articles | First Things
“Although it is largely Catholic thinkers who have connected the latest empirical evidence to the defense of Humanae Vitae ’s predictions, during those same forty years most of the experts actually producing the empirical evidence have been social scientists operating in the secular realm. As sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox emphasized in a 2005 essay: “The leading scholars who have tackled these topics are not Christians, and most of them are not political or social conservatives. They are, rather, honest social scientists willing to follow the data wherever it may lead.”
Consider, as Wilcox does, the Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof. In a well-known 1996 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics , Akerlof explained in the language of modern economics why the sexual revolution—contrary to common prediction, especially prediction by those in and out of the Church who wanted the teaching on birth control changed—had led to an increase in both illegitimacy and abortion. In another work published in the Economic Journal ten years ago, he traced the empirical connections between the decrease in marriage and married fatherhood for men—both clear consequences of the contraceptive revolution—and the simultaneous increase in behaviors to which single men appear more prone: substance abuse, incarceration, and arrests, to name just three.“
God bless
J
jochoa
Guest
Thank you for sharing and genuinely considering the many perspectives shared!
I believe the disconnect between your logical conclusions and Catholicism’s logical conclusions is caused by different understandings of what is best, and I think this is the case because this was my disconnect with Catholicism for several years, and I held a similar perspective to yours regarding sexuality.
In essence, Catholicism is teaching to attain a state of perfection that is beyond the “perfection” we either desire or believe is possible, and therefore, the teachings seem either unnecessary or wrong to us.
In regards to “open to life,” one aspect the greater state of perfection recognizes is that if two people agree that one another are amazing enough individuals for sexual intimacy, then more of these persons is also amazing for our would, therefore they should reproduce, and help those reproduced to be as amazing as they are, in a loving family, and in turn, our world becomes even more amazing!
I believe the disconnect between your logical conclusions and Catholicism’s logical conclusions is caused by different understandings of what is best, and I think this is the case because this was my disconnect with Catholicism for several years, and I held a similar perspective to yours regarding sexuality.
In essence, Catholicism is teaching to attain a state of perfection that is beyond the “perfection” we either desire or believe is possible, and therefore, the teachings seem either unnecessary or wrong to us.
In regards to “open to life,” one aspect the greater state of perfection recognizes is that if two people agree that one another are amazing enough individuals for sexual intimacy, then more of these persons is also amazing for our would, therefore they should reproduce, and help those reproduced to be as amazing as they are, in a loving family, and in turn, our world becomes even more amazing!
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… maybe, just maybe… “guilty as charged.” Here’s the thing: we know what the purpose of eating is, right? And, we know that enjoyment of food is another effect of eating. Yet, it’s pretty obvious that eating food but purging – that is, chasing one end of act of eating, while thwarting the other – is disordered and unhealthy. Why that seems like a “trick question” to you, I don’t know. It’s an example that seems quite along the lines of the other physical act that we’re talking about.C’mon, Emily. “Chewing and swallowing” is a function that’s isolated and not connected to any other bodily function? Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, but it sure seems like you’re saying “I chew and swallow… but no other physical processes happen! They’re just ‘taste my food and enjoy it, and that’s all there is’!” Am I misunderstanding you, then? Or is this your claim? If so, the claim is “nah… nothing happens to the food I eat after I swallow it”, and that’s patently facetious.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Sorry, but I am going to trust scientists on this. I know that conservatives often promote the idea that overpopulation is a myth, but it is supported by a consensus of scientists.
It’s all a matter of what means are tolerable to solve a problem. A decent, civilised person like David Attenborough will indeed promote better family planning, especially for women in developing countries, but he is not going to call for the extermination of living human beings. We don’t live in the future, but the future is going to happen. All we can do is plan for it. Outside of the Catholic Church, there is a consensus that giving women in developing countries control over their own fertility has benefits for the women themselves, their children, the countries in which they live, and the planet as a whole.
Thank you. I think it is very useful to hear the experiences of people who have not always been Catholics and who have also had to struggle with difficult concepts before committing themselves to the faith.
By “eating”, I meant the entire process of ingestion, digestion, absorption, excretion, and so on.
R
Rau
Guest
It is very likely true that the current world population conducting itself in the manner that it does is harmful to the environment. It does not follow that causing population to grow more slowly (or to decline) is the only or best solution. To characterise the problem as “overpopulation” assumes the cause if, and the solution to, the problem.
L
Lara
Guest
It depends exactly what those benefits are and the price paid for them.
Let’s look at just one line you wrote: giving women in developing countries control over their fertility…
In Western nations, there is often a presumption that men in developing countries are adversaries to their wives, and that they control their wives. Sometimes, this might be true. In my opinion, this is more likely to occur in a certain, specific non-Catholic religion. But even if this is so, then the solution is not to get in between the couple and put the woman into a deceptive stance where she is secretly taking a risky pill that could cause depression, blood clots, (or an IUD that could give her PID, etc.), but rather to have community interventions which address men and improve the “co” in co-creator. This solution lies with the Catholic Church in the form of Natural Family Planning which can be taught to men and women, and increases a man’s respect for his wife and improves a woman’s position in her marriage.
Let’s look at just one line you wrote: giving women in developing countries control over their fertility…
In Western nations, there is often a presumption that men in developing countries are adversaries to their wives, and that they control their wives. Sometimes, this might be true. In my opinion, this is more likely to occur in a certain, specific non-Catholic religion. But even if this is so, then the solution is not to get in between the couple and put the woman into a deceptive stance where she is secretly taking a risky pill that could cause depression, blood clots, (or an IUD that could give her PID, etc.), but rather to have community interventions which address men and improve the “co” in co-creator. This solution lies with the Catholic Church in the form of Natural Family Planning which can be taught to men and women, and increases a man’s respect for his wife and improves a woman’s position in her marriage.
- Status