Non-abortvie Contraception always wrong, but it doesnt add up if

[Pfaffenhoffen]

But see HH Benedict XVI, as quoted in Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

(NB: His Holiness did not say condoms are good in general; he merely commented that perhaps a male prostitute who decides to start using condoms to protect his customers might be considered to have turned a corner toward morality).

It’s the same sort of thinking I was using in suggesting that a rape victim’s use of contraception (to prevent disease and pregnancy from the rape) can be understood as moral.

Prostitutes should use pills and condoms.
And there should be more helping them (hard job) to get out of that life that they do not want and that they hate, victims, as they are, of sexual abuse.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes. I cannot believe you answered that. HV ws not made for these cases!

Yes. And why?

No

If they are male contraceptive pills, yes. If they are female contraceptive pills that have no effect on a man, no.

 

[carn]

Haha yes women are the ones who give birth to babies last time I checked. Saying that is their prime role is like saying a man’s prime role is producing sperm. The Church does not say anything about what a woman’s prime role in life is.

Baby producer is a pretty bad translation of “Gebärmaschine”. The german word imples the woman is a machine or an animal, that is someone property, just like the female animals of a sheep herd are property of a owner, who thinks of them in terms how many lambs they birth, as this is their only purpose relevant for the owner.

Obviously someone with such an opinion about the catholic teaching will have a low opinion of the church or might even consider it to be a criminal organization.

As catholic teaching is positive about women having lots of children (“be fruitful and multiply”), i want to understand the details, why nonetheless this is different from what opponents claim the church wants.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Baby producer is a pretty bad translation of “Gebärmaschine”. The german word imples the woman is a machine or an animal, that is someone property, just like the female animals of a sheep herd are property of a owner, who thinks of them in terms how many lambs they birth, as this is their only purpose relevant for the owner.

Obviously someone with such an opinion about the catholic teaching will have a low opinion of the church or might even consider it to be a criminal organization.

As catholic teaching is positive about women having lots of children (“be fruitful and multiply”), i want to understand the details, why nonetheless this is different from what opponents claim the church wants.

Where is the word “Gebärmaschine” referenced?

Yes Catholic teaching is positive about women having lots of children in the sense that it appreciates the generosity of the couples and their commitment in responsibly rearing up those children in the instruction of the Lord. Pope Paul VI in HV refined the principle of responsibly spacing (even indefinitely) births the natural way. You can have one or more than a dozen children, (the number does not matter) as long as the 4 factors enumerated are discerned prayerfully and with a generous disposition.

 

[carn]

Where is the word “Gebärmaschine” referenced?

Do not know what you mean be referenced. A online translation gives baby producer, which seems to have a far less negative meaning:
dict.cc/?s=Geb%C3%A4rmaschine

As for its useagainst the church:
spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,788140,00.html

“Der “weltgrößte Männerbund” propagiere ein patriarchales und sexistisches Familienkonzept, das Frauen auf “willige Gebärmaschinen” reduziere, riefen wütende Demonstranten heiser in die Mikrofone.”

my quick translation
“The “world biggest men society” " (with that they mean the church) " preaches a paternalistic and sexistic family concept, which reduces women to “willing birthing machines”, angry demonstrators screamed into the microphones.”

And “Gebärmaschine” is connotated with national socialism, because the nazis are considered to have aimed to reduce women to that role (and that charge is not without reason).
Therefore the charge against the church is meant that way:
““Quo vadis Benedikt?”, rief eine Demonstrantin in die Menge und schob die Antwort prompt hinterher: “Er biegt in einer scharfen Kurve nach rechts ab, direkt zurück in die Vergangenheit und in den braunen Sumpf.””

““Quo vadis Benedikt?”, a demonstrator asked the crowd and gave the answer at once: “He turns sharply right, directly back into the past and into the brown swamp.”” (brauner sumpf=brwon swamp is the term used to describe ideologies identical or far too close to national socialism).

Yes Catholic teaching is positive about women having lots of children () in the sense that it appreciates the generosity of the couples and their commitment in responsibly rearing up those children in the instruction of the Lord. Pope Paul VI in HV refined the principle of responsibly spacing (even indefinitely) births the natural way. You can have one or more than a dozen children, (the number does not matter) as long as the 4 factors enumerated are discerned prayerfully and with a generous disposition.()

And the fine print between the (*) is lost on many people i know. So i want to understand this fine print, so i can explain.

 

[Willy_Jose]

oh, so the “baby machine” term came from an angry Church critic. I’ve seen worse words hurled in false accusation though.

On the matter of the fine print, I think it is better to copy-paste the salient points of HV as follows:

*10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
*

 

[carn]

oh, so the “baby machine” term came from an angry Church critic. I’ve seen worse words hurled in false accusation though.

Maybe elsewhere, but in germany there is no worse accusation than “nazi” in germany and “reducing women to baby machines” and “brown swamp” are very close.

And i cannot say that its a minority opinion that church teachings do or at least have tended in direction of “baby machines”.

On the matter of the fine print, I think it is better to copy-paste the salient points of HV as follows:

I have to understand it myself and for that i have to ask questions where thigs do not add up in my eyes.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Maybe elsewhere, but in germany there is no worse accusation than “nazi” in germany and “reducing women to baby machines” and “brown swamp” are very close.

And i cannot say that its a minority opinion that church teachings do or at least have tended in direction of “baby machines”.

Yes “opinion” is the proper term. The Church has so honored women, the highest expression of which is found in the church’s greatest Saint, the mother of Jesus himself. We also get heavily criticized for honoring her so much though.

I have to understand it myself and for that i have to ask questions where thigs do not add up in my eyes.

Your questions are most welcome.

 

[passer_by]

Maybe elsewhere, but in germany there is no worse accusation than “nazi” in germany and “reducing women to baby machines” and “brown swamp” are very close.

And i cannot say that its a minority opinion that church teachings do or at least have tended in direction of “baby machines”.

I am not sure what you mean by “baby machines” anymore.

The Church does acknowledge that women are the only ones who can give birth to children. So naturally, motherhood is part of a woman.

I would think it would be more offensive to say that women are discouraged to have children? It’s like denying who God had made them to be?

As for looking at women like animals or mere objects, I think there is ample church teaching against that. After all, in todays world, it is the church that stresses the importance of modesty and sex within marriage (both of which are proper to the dignity of a person), while the world thinks it is good to engage in utilitarianism and objectification.

 

[Listener]

It seems to me that you would have the right to kill the rapist, especially if he was a dangerous burglar who came in through your window in the middle of the night.

If you have the right to kill him in self defense, why would you worry about doing away with his sperm? It seems like a crazy question to me.

Since you’re not married to the guy, you have no obligation to him whatsoever. Nobody is doing a “marital act” here.

Once years ago, I read of a group of nuns who were on birth control pills. It seems that they lived in such a terrible neighborhood that they were in danger of being raped.

 

[carn]

Yes “opinion” is the proper term. The Church has so honored women, the highest expression of which is found in the church’s greatest Saint, the mother of Jesus himself. We also get heavily criticized for honoring her so much though.

I think its easy to notice that feminists objections cannot be refuted by noting that the church’s greatest Saint is a woman. Because she is the churchs greatest saint, because she got pregnant (with Jesus), had absolutely no say in whether she wanted to get pregnant and nonetheless happily accepted it (because she was faithful to God). Furthermore she completly missed the potentially physical pleasurable part of getting pregnant.

That will confirm feminists in their opinion, because they miss the implications of the parts in parenthesis. They understand that the church thinks women good, who do not enjoy sex, let others decide whether they get pregnant and are blazingly happy even with child number 10 or 11.

Though what some people miss is that the real demaning remarks in this respect are from Luther, who in effect said, that a women is too be pregnant as often as possible and if she carries till she dies, its fine,because the Lord made them so and the man should just get a new one.

@passer_by
When one approaches 10 or 11 children, motherhood is not a part of a womens life, its the only thing in her life at least for a decade, which would be the rest of her life if following Luthers “advice”.

 

[Birdpreacher]

You gotta wonder if female clergy in leadership positions would’ve handled the entire sex abuse scandal better.

 

[carn]

You gotta wonder if female clergy in leadership positions would’ve handled the entire sex abuse scandal better.

Besides being this off-topic, as far as i know, sexual abuse is in all organizations dealing with children (school, various protestant and other churches, sports clubs, … ) as prevalent, meaning the percentage of misbehaving members, similar and the “clean-up methods” by the superiors are similar.
In what the Church differs is that i suspect that the graveness of the individual incidents is on average less serious.

E.g. in germany there was last year a lot of reporting about abuse scandals. The stories told in media were about abuse in relation to church were very often not rape but indecent touching and photos. Crimes certainly. But at the same time a left leaning and “progressive” private school got into focus, where some teachers discussed who could have which child (though the ages were between 12 and 16) and effictively organized rape for decades.

If in german church similar serious crimes had happened it would have been wildly reported. Therefore i suspect that while numbers would be similar, the extent of the crimes is on average somewhat lesser. (That does not exclude serious cases and excuses nothing. It just means that the morals of secular society are of little help or even harmful when trying to deal with the crimes.)

 

[Willy_Jose]

Though what some people miss is that the real demaning remarks in this respect are from Luther, who in effect said, that a women is too be pregnant as often as possible and if she carries till she dies, its fine,because the Lord made them so and the man should just get a new one.

Oh you mean Martin Luther. Interesting guy, but we Catholics don’t put any weight to much of everything he says just in terms of speaking our view of Church tradition and teaching. But of course. I don’t mean to demean Luther, only that we couldn’t care less what he says.

Now I think you are going off-topic too. Please read and try to understand what HV says in my previous post to get back in the groove.

You gotta wonder if female clergy in leadership positions would’ve handled the entire sex abuse scandal better.

ROTFL

 

[carn]

Oh you mean Martin Luther. Interesting guy, but we Catholics don’t put any weight to much of everything he says just in terms of speaking our view of Church tradition and teaching. But of course. I don’t mean to demean Luther, only that we couldn’t care less what he says.

But if someone mistakenly believes Church shares Luthers opinion in this respect, it would be argumentativly a bad move to refer to the respect the Church has for Mary, because the critic will see his postion confirmed.

Now I think you are going off-topic too. Please read and try to understand what HV says in my previous post to get back in the groove.

I think this thread is more or less finished as the thread question was more or less solved, as it was solely about a situation outside marriage. The question what is to be made of the charge against the church inside marriage, i would prefer to discuss in other threads, e.g. this one forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=607375
which deals with the fundamental aspect if and how a women could avoid the fate Luther suggests for women if her husband wants to have more children.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Carn,
Here is more from Humanae Vitae.

*17. … 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. *

Does Pope Paul VI give any hint at all about your notion of “baby machines” ? This is the official teaching by the way.

 

[carn]

Carn,
Here is more from Humanae Vitae.

17. … 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.

Does Pope Paul VI give any hint at all about your notion of “baby machines” ? This is the official teaching by the way.

No.
And its not my notion.

I do think that its possible that as an unintended side effect of the churchs teaching some people get the impression of “baby machines”. Even the most well intended rules could have unwanted consequences or at least others could assume that there are some unintended consequences.

And if contraception is always wrong in marriage and if a man missed the above highlighted parts and if refusal to intercourse is normally not permissable (see other thread), then the women will not be able to decide whether its Luthers fate for her or not, because her husband and chance (or Gods will if you prefer, but i find them somewhat hard to distinguish) will decide this for her.

And while trusting God is fine, having ones fate entirely in the hand of an abusive and disrepctful husband would certainly be something feminists would be correct to complain about.

 

[Willy_Jose]

And while trusting God is fine, having ones fate entirely in the hand of an abusive and disrepctful husband would certainly be something feminists would be correct to complain about.

Certainly. All men of goodwill (even of the male gender, not just feminists) should complain too if that is the case. And you don’t need any specific religious orientation or lack thereof to have to agree on this. I will look into the other thread as time permits. Thanks.