Avoiding jargon, please can you explain "being open to life" to a non-Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmilyAlexandra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It sounds to me as though you will likely reject Catholicism in your search.
Why do you say that? I think @EmilyAlexandra is asking honest questions, sharing her current perspective and difficulties and telling us what problems she encounters, and trying to understand and make sense of it all. For those of us who were not born into a religious household and have not had some kind of mystical experience, what she does is pretty much the only way to faith, isn’t it ?

@EmilyAlexandra, have you read CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity ? Although he wasn’t a Catholic, and the book doesn’t specifically deal with questions relative to sexual ethics, I think he does a very good job at introducing the basics of Christian faith from a rational, argued point of view.
 
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.
emphasis mine
Humanae vitae:
17. 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.
It seems that Pope St. Paul VI is quite perspicacious in predicting the effects of artificial birth control, and yes, outside the Church there is a consensus that it is a good thing, but outside the Church there is no salvation. QED.
 
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.
That might be the case for people looking into some of those countries from the outside. “That poor couple has 15 kids and almost no money, just a farm!” Well, who exactly is going to be doing the work on the farm if not the kids?

Just as well, attempts to “control” fertility with “tools” often ends with the opposite of the desired effect in the third world, as people just don’t learn how to use them properly and don’t care enough to.

Additionally - a very uniquely contemporary Western mindset about having children can also miss the way it is viewed elsewhere… A woman with many children might be treated very differently than a woman with few, especially one with none at all, in certain parts of the world.
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.
As we are seeing with a certain virus, there is no “value-free” science, especially with “big data.” The fact that one can say the “conservative” view is such-and-such already highlights a problem.
 
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 most certainly is not supported by a consensus of scientists. We have no idea how many people the earth will support, but we do know that we have not reached anything close to as limit as far as resources go. In 1970 we had a world population of 3.7B. 50 years later we have a population of 7.8 B, over a 100% increase. Over-population was touted as a problem then. Yet we have far fewer famines, have not come close to running out of energy, a far lower percentage of the population living in poverty, a far higher percentage being middle class. We have run out of ZERO resources.

As far as the environment, excluding the global warming issue (will address that next), in the entire industrialized world it is far cleaner, the air, water. There are more trees, yet we grow way more food. In the non-industrialized world, as a whole there has also been improvement in the environment, although not as significant of an improvement.

So, the only issue that could indicate we are over-populated is global warming. I am not a climate change denier, but I do not feel like the effects are going to be near as drastic as people predict, and there are many non-denier scientists who say the same thing. On top of that, we are addressing it. In the US, carbon emmissions have been going down since 2007. On a per capita basis, they have gone down since 1973. Similiar trends across all of Europe.

In summary, it is impossible to make any claim of over-population and back it up by actual facts.
 
OK, getting back on track and away from overpopulation, here are some other aspects to consider.

Antecedent and perpetual impotence is an impediment to marriage - - that’s how important the procreation and education of children is to marriage.

Next, w/r/t ‘every act has to be ordered properly’: if one considers the other promises one makes, if one intends a Catholic marriage (and marriage generally, I submit), there is the promise to be faithful. Does it mean every expression of the marital act has to be with that one person, for the rest of one’s life? Why, yes, yes it does. Sometimes that helps one see the connection.

The God of the universe trusts us to cooperate with Him in creating a new embodied soul which will exist forever. Think about that. That is amazing. And while He sets the parameters, He trusts us (the couple) to determine if there is a serious reason to postpone or avoid creating that new person. Perhaps we image the Trinity, in Whose image we are created, male and female, through marriage.

Just some quick thoughts I wanted to jot down.
 
One-income families, once the rule, are now the exception. So I feel people’s pain — because I’ve been there — and I can understand why they would see the need to limit the number of children they have. Maybe the Church does likewise.
Even those who think it important to have a parent home full time make a lot of sacrifices to live on one-income in a two-income economy. Even they often have to limit the number of children due to the frugality of their lifestyle. It’s more difficult for the average middle-class family to have 4+ plus children than it once was when we had a family wage. The structure of society makes it difficult all around - finances, time-constraints, unhealthy lifestyles leading to health problems etc.
 
Last edited:
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.
That’s a good point. It will be interesting to see if there is a dip in the birth rate for 2020-21. Of course, then again, all that time locked down at home together may mitigate that a bit.
 
Even those who think it important to have a parent home full time make a lot of sacrifices to live on one-income in a two-income economy. Even they often have to limit the number of children due to the frugality of their lifestyle. It’s very difficult for the average middle-class family to have 4+ plus children than it once was when we had a family wage. The structure of society make it difficult all around - finances, time-constraints, unhealthy lifestyles leading to health problems etc.
I think the biggest strain on families is the loss of extended family networks. It’s now way more common for families to be dispersed all over the country. It’s a game changer if families can lean on each other. Even being able to call up grandma to watch the kids for a few hours would be a blessing.
 
Yes. I absolutely agree with this. When my three daughters were small and very demanding, I longed for other moms and children who were home during the day close by, so we could support each other in our dual duties of supervising children and managing the household. Just another adult to talk to would have been a game changer. When everyone in the neighborhood is gone during the day and the few retirees don’t seem to want to be bothered, that isolation is mentally challenging. Whether spread out by long distances or even if nearby but working, there is very little support surrounding the nuclear family. What little there is may come in the form of library, church and community programs but they are just not the same as having your extended family as nearby neighbors. Even grandparents these days are usually working during the day and too tired to help out much.
 
Last edited:
OK, getting back on track and away from overpopulation, here are some other aspects to consider.
Quick point of order. Overpopulation was the very first reason the OP brought up as to her difficulty of understanding Church teaching. So it seems to me to be very much on tract. In addition: many people who take exception to the Church’s teaching against ABC include over-population as one of their reasons. It is also one the first issue Paul VI wrote about in Humane Vitae. The issue is not off track. Lets not sweep those arguments under the rug.
 
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.
This is one of the finest, most excellent things I have ever read on CAF in the year-and-a-half I have been a member.

"There is no 'God-free zone" in life" — this needs to be brought up in the very first catechism or RCIA class anyone ever takes.

Thank you for saying this.
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).
I’m not saying you’re wrong, indeed, what you write is very well-put and makes sense, but where do these “three fundamental precepts” come from?

Having a set of first principles to start from, would be very useful in explaining to people what natural law is, and why it is true. This is not really something people in the modern world give a whole lot of thought to — generally, the idea is more like “is it good for me, does it give me pleasure and not pain, does it preserve the interests of those for whom I care or with whom I have affinity, and is it legal?”, a type of positivism, really. Identity politics borrow from this — “the ultimate test of good or evil is whether it benefits my identity group or hinders it”, really warmed-over Saul Alinsky thought.
 
Last edited:
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.
Hey, this is very, very well expressed. A very original and well made point. I cannot express enough how much I like it.
 
@HomeschoolDad, @tafan2, thank you for the kind comments ! They should really go to my vacation, which allows me to ingest and digest a healthy daily dose of theology (these days, mainly CS Lewis and saint John Paul II).

I’m beginning to think I should write my sermons while I’m on vacation. I’d do much better than during the year :crazy_face:
 
Eh, fair enough, I suppose, but the point of the thread is understanding “being open to life” in Catholic parlance.
 
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.
I assume that you mean Islam, although “non-Catholic religion” could also refer to Protestants. In my experience, women are often controlled by their husbands in fundamentalist Protestant denominations.
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
I’m not sure that anybody is advocating that women should use contraception “secretly”. I think you also greatly exaggerate the possible side effects of oral contraceptives. Like all medications, they do have possible side effects, but most women do not experience serious side effects. As with all medications, it’s a matter of weighing up the benefits against the risks.
This solution lies with the Catholic Church in the form of Natural Family Planning
I suppose it is only logical that a Catholic would believe that the Catholic Church has the solutions to everybody’s problems.
have you read CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity ?
I have not. Perhaps I ought to try. To be honest, and I appreciate that this is a little off-topic, I have generally been put off C.S. Lewis simply because he is so popular among conservative evangelicals, but is apparently regarded as an amateur by academic theologians. Somebody once tried to convince me to become a Christian by using Lewis’s trilemma, which I thought was a very weak argument for Christianity. (I can appreciate that Lewis’s trilemma may well be an interesting idea for people who are already Christians, but if you’re not a Christian it is completely unconvincing.) However, perhaps I should give C.S. Lewis a chance.

[Overall, apologies if there are any comments to which I have not replied directly. With almost 80 responses on this thread, I may not have replied to all of them specifically, especially as some are repeating points I have responded to previously. However, be assured that I am reading them all! Thank you.]
 
I have generally been put off C.S. Lewis simply because he is so popular among conservative evangelicals, but is apparently regarded as an amateur by academic theologians.
Don’t let that put you off. Yes, he’s a conservative, and yes, he has some very traditional (for lack of a better word) views about women. But he’s absolutely logical, bluntly honest, ready to try and live up to the conclusions he draws, and compassionate. I just finished reading his spiritual direction letters and they’re really remarkable in that respect.

I think his trilemma was aimed at a specific public : people (who sometimes identify as Christians) who do recognize something in Jesus, but only as a “good guy” or a wise teacher. I’m not sure it was meant for any other context.

As for being an amateur theologian… I don’t like that concept very much, to be honest, and see it rather as an attempt to disqualify people who think outside the academic box (I’m saying this as someone who went through the whole cursus of academic theology, and even taught it for a little while). Academic theology didn’t always exist, and if you come to think of it, Lewis’ formation, based on classics and logic, was not very different from saint Augustine’s, whom nobody would dream to call an “amateur theologian”.
 
Academic theology didn’t always exist, and if you come to think of it, Lewis’ formation, based on classics and logic, was not very different from saint Augustine’s, whom nobody would dream to call an “amateur theologian”.
I have heard academic theologians say that saint Augustine had it easier because a lot of theology was still unwritten. Nowadays there is much more to study and consider.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top