Please critique this dissenting article about contraceptives

  • Thread starter Thread starter opus101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

opus101

Guest
This article was brought to my attention, and it seems so insidious, I don’t even know where to begin to respond. The “list of errors” of the Church (!) are particularly perplexing, as I don’t even know what he’s getting at with some of them. I found out that the author is an ex-priest, and since then has been married and divorced. Can anyone shed light on this article for me? Thank you.
goerie.com/article/20120325/OPINION08/303259972/Drane%3A-Laymen-women-should-take-part-in-judgments-on-contraceptives
 
It’s an interesting article, with some useful suggestions, but ultimately his point is flawed because he a) doesn’t seem to respect that the Church teaches with authority on moral matters, and b) seems confused as to whether this is even a moral matter.

His final remarks give an inidaction as to what is wrong with his thinking…

“Let’s see if married Catholics can help bishops get a better perspective on the issues and help the Church to use more compromise and civility in social matters.”

He sees this as a social matter, not a moral one.
 
“Married people have much more insight into moral issues like contraception because of their lifelong experience with sexual relations”

Let’s pretend for a second this is true.

Then don’t Bishops have more of an insight into all moral issues because of their lifelong experience with God relations?
 
Contraception can’t be considered intrinsically evil, and the Catholic Church has a refined set of standards for cooperation and compromise with less than intrinsic evil. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, condemned recent wars in Iraq and the Middle East, but he didn’t condemn troops or efforts to compromise on war issues.
Contracepting is intrinsically evil. There are no theraputic reasons to get a vasectomy, or to get a tubal ligation. The Plan B pill has no theraputic reasons. You could possibly argue the pill has some theraputic uses, and I’m sure the Bishops would be willing to compromise some there with regards to how the policy is written for a pro-life policy in line with Catholic standards.

The problem is there is no generalized policy that the entire populace is going to support. The solution is called having options that are dictated by the free market and not tying health insurance to employment. When you tie health insurance to employment your doing the exact same thing the government is doing on a larger scale. Your assuming everyone you employ will agree to the same policy. Why does it not make sense to have everyone purchase health insurance individually? If the government wants to offer a public option for those who are disadvantaged, which it already does in multiple States, they can go for it.
 
I think he’s confused about what religion he’s talking about Catholicism has almost never been led from the pews (that I know of), it’s always been a hierarchical organization with decisions made at the top.
Essentially, he’s asking Catholics to not be Catholics.

I will say that I am confused why procreative issues always grab the spotlight? I have been paying taxes that fund executions for years, but there is never the uproar about that that exists regarding procreative rights.
Of all the things that we do that go against Catholic teachings, why are reproductive issues always the ones that people decide to take a public stand on?
 
I think he’s confused about what religion he’s talking about Catholicism has almost never been led from the pews (that I know of), it’s always been a hierarchical organization with decisions made at the top.
Essentially, he’s asking Catholics to not be Catholics.

I will say that I am confused why procreative issues always grab the spotlight? I have been paying taxes that fund executions for years, but there is never the uproar about that that exists regarding procreative rights.
Of all the things that we do that go against Catholic teachings, why are reproductive issues always the ones that people decide to take a public stand on?
The death penalty and war are not intrinsically evil. You have heard the uproar about paying for contraception, that you have been hearing for quite awhile about abortions. Both are intrinsically evil. If the government starts pushing euthanasia and the “right to die” you will hear the uproar again.

Also the Constitution does not recognize the right of conscience with general tax dollars. The government could constitutionally make a law that gave funding to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions. The only thing stopping that from occurring is the will of the people. The only thing that stops the government from exercising its right to declare war is the will of the people.

The Constitution does protect religious freedom when its singled out or directly forced to pay for something. I could give arguments as to why the fine is not a tax, but Obama has already done such a great job for us of explaining why its a fine. There is also very little compelling State interest in mandating that all health insurance plans provide this coverage or any proof that this is even necessary.
 
opus101
You say; “I don’t even know where to begin to respond.”
Why?
As an ex-priest who then married and is divorced, he should be considered as the renegade he is and when critcising infallible doctrine, as bizarre.

He pontificates that:
“Contraception can’t be considered intrinsically evil” and feels that
the doctrine against contraception rests on the “error” that “each and every sexual act must be open to procreation because sperm is sacred.”

However, Christ gave us His Supreme Vicar in St Peter with His authority to bind and loose. As Supreme Vicar, his successor Pope Pius XI taught infallibly in Casti Connubii, #56, 1930:
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

**Onan
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
"The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text – spilled his seed on the ground – and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church – and nature – that contraception is mortally sinful.

“Egoism motivates fornication and contraception, because the goal is not self-giving, but rather the immediate pleasure of self-satisfaction.”
 
Well, I have several concerns over this guy’s “opinion.” And it is an opinion he is expressing. To me, the fundamental flaw involves his attitude in general about the Church. His assumption is that our Church operates as a democracy, which it does not. While democracy is a good thing (my opinion) for governments, our Church is not even vaguely similar to democracies. We did not elect God or Jesus or The Holy Spirit. They are not beholding to us or obliged to concede to our wishes. They were, are now and always will be. We do not have “rights” to change teachings of the Church. The “operating procedures” of the Church have been in existence for thousands of years based on things such as infalability. I don’t think (or I certainly hope not) that members of the Church are going to beat our Pope into submission to our beliefs or convince him to adhere to our polls of what should change.

I pray that this sort of thing does not happen in our Church.
 
opus101
You say; “I don’t even know where to begin to respond.”
Why?
As an ex-priest who then married and is divorced, he should be considered as the renegade he is and when critcising infallible doctrine, as bizarre.

He pontificates that:
“Contraception can’t be considered intrinsically evil” and feels that
the doctrine against contraception rests on the “error” that “each and every sexual act must be open to procreation because sperm is sacred.”

However, Christ gave us His Supreme Vicar in St Peter with His authority to bind and loose. As Supreme Vicar, his successor Pope Pius XI taught infallibly in Casti Connubii, #56, 1930:
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

**Onan
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
"The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text – spilled his seed on the ground – and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church – and nature – that contraception is mortally sinful.

“Egoism motivates fornication and contraception, because the goal is not self-giving, but rather the immediate pleasure of self-satisfaction.”
Abu, thank you for your response, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. One of the reasons I posted this was because I don’t even understand what he is saying ('I’m not as educated in Theology as some of you might be), especially in his list of Church “errors”. For instance, what is he talking about in the the first one, when he lists “physicalism” When was this an “error” of the Church, and when was it corrected? He said that sometimes it took centuries for the Church to admit these errors and to correct them. Of course I don’t believe him, but I’m wondering what exactly he’s referring to.

His second listed “error” (“Procreation was believed for centuries to come from male semen alone. Females provided only a “nest” where the human life could develop”) How is this a CHURCH error? Wasn’t it just a general scientific error of the times?

His third Church error was “Each and every sexual act must be open to procreation because sperm is sacred .” It is my understanding that these acts must still be open to procreation, and that this is not some “old” teaching. What does he mean that sperm is “sacred”?

What does he mean about the “eternal and immutable” being preferred to the “historical and changeable”? Doesn’t the Church teach that there are some things that change, and some things that are eternal and immutable (namely Truth and God himself?)? What do you think Drane means here?

I know someone quite well who goes to his parish. He receives Holy Communion every Sunday. I’ve read many other articles by him, and most of them are very bitter and resort to name-calling and vicious ad hominem attacks against the Bishops and the Pope. Then he writes this one, and asks others to be be more “civil”!
 
Interesting article with, as you mentioned, many errors. Actually, as I write this post, I’m finding it difficult because of all of the misrepresentations the author makes of the Church’s stance on the issues. I’ll hit on a few points (excerpts from the article in italics:

Because this is so, Catholic bishops in the U.S. can’t be criticized for being involved in today’s politics, including the effects of a new health-care plan. Involvement in politics is OK, but righteousness and unwillingness to make even modest compromise are behaviors certainly open to criticism.

What compromise is there to make? Morality is not a democratic vote. It’s like saying that we should compromise on how differential equations are solved because it is difficult for some people to solve them the way we should solve them. How righteous for mathematicians to demand that they be solved in a specific way. The Bishops are trying to protect their flock, not trying to please politicians or those who disagree with the moral teachings of the Church.

Bishops, however, showed no appreciation, no offer to compromise, nothing but continued demands.

Not much to say other than it is correct for the Bishops to not compromise an inch if the Church (correctly) believes that contraception is wrong. The author’s opinion about contraception of course leads him to this conclusion.

Contraception can’t be considered intrinsically evil, and the Catholic Church has a refined set of standards for cooperation and compromise with less than intrinsic evil.

Contraception has been considered a sin for a long time by the Church. I’m not sure what he’s talking about other than comparing it to war, which isn’t always “evil.”

This behavior by some bishops cries out for the involvement of another source of moral authority from within the Church: Catholic laymen and laywomen. Married people have much more insight into moral issues like contraception because of their lifelong experience with sexual relations. The Church is more than the hierarchy.

Ordinary Catholics have to step up in certain situations to take responsibility for the Church’s moral teachings, especially Catholics who reacted to recent Church leadership failures in handling pedophilia by leaving the church. They have to start coming back, and with their deeply held convictions, getting involved. It is time to do something more than retreating into isolation. By returning, they would enrich their individual lives and provide important enrichment to the whole community.


Just because married Catholics don’t always follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, doesn’t mean they get a right to say whether it’s right or wrong. Just because the way the Church handled the cases of pedophilia did not agree with everyone, doesn’t mean that the Church condoned pedophilia. The problem is that we’re all ordinary - meaning that we all make mistakes and we all sin. That’s why we need Jesus Christ and His Church. As for “ordinary Catholics” to take responsibility, I agree that more of us need to follow the Church’s teaching on contraception!

I will stop here, partly because some of his further arguments about some of the “mistakes” about sexual morality are a little out of my knowledge base and I’m tire.

In any case, I hope I’ve contributed positively to the discussion.

God bless,
Bryan
 
The problem is there is no generalized policy that the entire populace is going to support. The solution is called having options that are dictated by the free market and not tying health insurance to employment. When you tie health insurance to employment your doing the exact same thing the government is doing on a larger scale. Your assuming everyone you employ will agree to the same policy. Why does it not make sense to have everyone purchase health insurance individually? If the government wants to offer a public option for those who are disadvantaged, which it already does in multiple States, they can go for it.
Agreed…1,000%. Who ever dreamed up the idea that employers should be required to offer health insurance?
 
“physicalism” = the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality. He hasn’t begun to understand the purpose of sexual intercourse and the unitive and procreative realities that are intertwined.

He has a hang up over sperm and doesn’t understand the simple natural moral law as upheld by the Church.

No one can know what he means, except that he tries to displace Christ’s Supreme Vicar, the Pope, to teach on faith and morals, infallibly. This is evident in his constant attacks and disrespect for Christ in Holy Communion.

On that score this is the Supreme Vicar of Christ:
“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Bl John Paul II, Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].
 
This is a fairly typical criticism of catholic teaching on contraception and, not surprisingly, is why many people who have rejected church teaching on the subject also fail to realize the serious constitutional peril caused by the Obama administration essentially requiring Catholicism to betray its own convictions in its daily operations.

This laicised priest (no such thing as an ex-priest) appears to have received no serious education in catholic sexual teaching. As this link explains, seminaries not only failed to teach authentic catholic morality on the subject from the 60’s through the 80’s, the professors there openly MOCKED it to their students. rev-know-it-all.com/2012/2012—03-04.html No wonder guys like this learned nothing. (and no wonder so many priests also had no respect for OTHER catholic sexual/moral teachings. What goes around, comes around)

Especially telling is the way he apparently internalized the Monty Python satire tune “Every Sperm is Sacred” (I forget, is that from Life of Brian or Holy Grail?) and mistakes it for actual catholic teaching! Pretty sad that a catholic priest got his sexual values more from British satire than the actual catholic Magisterium.

What he and most dissenters fail to consider is the deep insight revelation gives us that sexuality, like many of God’s gifts, has surface visible components and deeper spiritual components. In other words, marriage, sex and babies are NOT three distinct topics, but one completely intwined moral ecosystem. The moment you forget that, you expose yourself to harmful abuses that degrade the fullness of what sexual intimacy IS. In our day, that isn’t just contraception, but fornication, abortion, divorce, IVF and gay marriage. These abuses ALL come about from failure to comprehend the totality of what sexuality IS and how each facet is inseparable from the others.

Because he has never learned this, he begins with the unexamined assumption that the procreative and unitive functions of marital sexual contact are two separate goods attached by only an incidental thread that God mistakenly left tying the two together and that we wise humans can freely snip without fundamentally altering the substance of what the gift of sexuality is. When starting from such a faulty assumption, it is no wonder that one quickly concludes that there is no moral harm in using technology to MAKE the act as sterile on fertile days as it naturally is at many points in every woman’s cycle. But this is extremely shallow thinking that fails to recognize that that action itself is lie spoken in the language of the body instead of the tongue. It is a physical statement that says that sex has nothing to do with making babies unless I WILL it to. (This is also why abstinance on fertile days for serious reasons is NOT a sinful behavior: it retains the respect that sex is about babies and suborns my will to God’s by giving up what would otherwise be a good and awsome thing for a serious reason I have not to bring a new child into being this month) THAT, folks, is why contraception is sinful. Remember, sins aren’t just actions on an arbitrary list. They are things that are genuinely harmful to your soul, to your ability to give and receive love. When sex no longer has anything to do with babies, it very tends to have less and less to do with self-giving at all and tends to become about the self.

Someone asked a great question. Why does the Church get so obsessed with sex? The answer is that it is the CULTURE that is obsessed with sex, and a warped vision thereof. It is the basic function of the church to teach the truth and correct error. Humans lie, cheat, steal and kill all too often. But our culture generally agrees that those things are wrong. Where our culture needs correction is when it declares evil things to be good things. The church takes special care to correct faulty assertions like that. “Mercy killings” will be one such thing in the near future you will see the church stand firm against. Greed, contrary to Ayn Rand fan assertions, is NOT good. Wherever there are movements by people to redefine an evil as a good, the church will be there telling the truth. In our day and age, sexual issues are where the culture is falling for big “evil is good” lies. No surprise that fighting those ideas is a priority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top