Thoughts on contraception

[Matt33]

and there’s no institution that has the right to come into your life and say, “This is what’s right for you.”

–Mike

I also want to focus on this part. How can you really make this statement? EVERY institution tells us this. From, public education, to laws designed to seatbelt us in, to Wal Mart deciding which coupons we can use, or a bartender deciding when we have had enough. To a Warden telling inmates what to wear? Do you have a job? have you been to a doctor? they all tell us things, we all are subject to many things. We follow so many of them, how much more should we follow God’s Church? It is called Laws, Order, Civility. Well God too has His laws. How do we know them? How do we know him? That is another thread, but what choice we DO have is the choice to follow or subscribe to that Job, government, religion, corporation…etc. So it really comes down to, Does God have authority over you? Character is a concept that is dear to me but forgotten to the world. And Character is doing the right thing when it isn’t easy or even something you want to do. Not because you have to, but because something makes you, or if that something is inside you, the Church or just buckeling up even though you don’t want to to set an example to your kids. This is what leads us all to sainthood.

 

[mpartyka]

Does God have authority over you?

Church <> God. Humans <> God. I don’t trust any Church 100%, nor do I trust any human agent 100%, to know what’s right in every circumstance, all the time. Even Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sometimes the rules need to be broken, changed, or even altogether discarded because the rules aren’t serving their ultimate purpose anymore. And the idea that God’s will for each and every individual human being on the planet could be codified in a set of rules less generalized than the Ten Commandments is utterly ridiculous to me.

–Mike

 

[Matt33]

Church <> God. Humans <> God. I don’t trust any Church 100%, nor do I trust any human agent 100%, to know what’s right in every circumstance, all the time. Even Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sometimes the rules need to be broken, changed, or even altogether discarded because the rules aren’t serving their ultimate purpose anymore. And the idea that God’s will for each and every individual human being on the planet could be codified in a set of rules less generalized than the Ten Commandments is utterly ridiculous to me.

–Mike

Again, there is a different between our realities. If this makes sense for you, great. But it sounds to me as if your idea of God is "a little voice within you. To me that little voice is what I don’t always trust 100% sometimes it has let me down, but the Church, God’s Church, God’s institution has not. That is my reality. Yours is different, I understand and also wish better for you. The fact that the 10 comandments can be utterly rediculous in thier universal implementation probably only makes the Two greatest Comandments that Jesus gave us utterly incomprehensible.

 

[newbetx]

Sorry, I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get back here for a while. I’ve not had a lot of time to digest all of this but I saw some things I felt I should comment on.

Which was my point. “Choosing to not have sex…may be the sin of selfishness” if the Church says, “Your reasons for not having a new baby aren’t good enough” (just like the earlier poster said point-blank).

–Mike

I understand what you are saying here… The above COULD be true.

The article says, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as they reasonably can.” I don’t read this to mean anything different from, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as possible,” with the word “possible” including the consideration of whatever circumstances the Church thinks are reasonable for the couple to claim as impediments – what the Church thinks is reasonable, not what the couple thinks is reasonable. And so we have people making blanket statements about other people’s lives, such as:

–Mike

I guess your bolded point is an issue. You can’t call a cow a “cat” and it not still be a cow. There is a big difference in having as many cars as you can and having as many as reasonable. (I’ve heard of a guy that buys a box fan everytime he sees one at the store… is that a reasonable thing to do?)

And another thing. The Church doesn’t have such a list. it’s up to the couple to determine the factors. We are called to be prudent, not selfish. And we all know that we can rationalize that we have more needs than we really do. A couple seeking to validate their choice may decide to get some spiritual direction, but it’s ultimately up to them. Not anyone here at CAF.

Really? So, if it comes down between getting your existing kids into a **good **college or having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between having internet access, cable TV, two cars rather than one, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between risking your life and health and whether your existing kids get to have their mother in their lives when they get older, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid?

Here’s a thought: How about we all let the couple decide for themselves whether to try having another kid or not?

–Mike

DING DING DING!
Mike you are right. It IS up to the couple. It’s expected to for them to prayerfully consider more children or not. The church does not specify a specific amount of children for any particular couple.(Beyond the assumption that you will try to have some) It does say that the couple should be prudent when considering having more children.
The “grave” thing is to draw attention to the serious nature of the calling you should be seeking with regard to more children. It certainly should not be taken lightly.

Theres a whole thread on the topic of what is the right number of children for a family. If the church meant for everyone to have six, then it would say “have six.” It doesn’t.

It’s about faith, too. Will God provide more? Are you dependent upon winning the lotto to make ends meet? If God is part of the decision, your comfort level will be met. God doesn’t want us to create wards of the state. But he probably doesn’t think getting a 40ft yaht rather than having a second child is a great trade off, either. The Church DOES teach that is up to the couple. It also expects GOD, not the plushness of lifestyle of the couple to be part of the decision process.

Church <> God. Humans <> God. I don’t trust any Church 100%, nor do I trust any human agent 100%, to know what’s right in every circumstance, all the time. Even Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sometimes the rules need to be broken, changed, or even altogether discarded because the rules aren’t serving their ultimate purpose anymore. And the idea that God’s will for each and every individual human being on the planet could be codified in a set of rules less generalized than the Ten Commandments is utterly ridiculous to me.

–Mike

IMO, if all we needed was the ten commandments, we wouldn’t need the rest of the bible…

Again. It’s not up to us, here. Or some guy in a building somewhere to dictate. It’s up to the couple to welcome God into the equation. And I might say that is more difficult for some than for others. What we know in our hearts is that sex is a gift. One that’s use is of a very serious nature. And that no one should be treated as an object for someone else’s desires. When you marry and have sex it is for the purpose of communicating love. And it may result in a blessing that requires future self sacrafice to support. That’s what a couple commits to when they marry. And NOT having sex in certain conditions may communicate that same love but by a different method of sacrafice.

So I think there’s been a misunderstanding about what the church teaches. It’s up to the couple to consider things prayerfully with God. If you cut God out of the process, then you aren’t approaching the issue properly.

 

[mpartyka]

I guess your bolded point is an issue. You can’t call a cow a “cat” and it not still be a cow. There is a big difference in having as many cars as you can and having as many as reasonable.

Of course, but when it comes to having babies, nobody in his/her right mind would think “as many as possible” means anything beyond “as many as we think possible” because nobody (except maybe that couple on TLC with the 16 kids) thinks popping out a kid every nine months non-stop is sane behavior.

And another thing. The Church doesn’t have such a list. it’s up to the couple to determine the factors. We are called to be prudent, not selfish. And we all know that we can rationalize that we have more needs than we really do. A couple seeking to validate their choice may decide to get some spiritual direction, but it’s ultimately up to them.

I realize this. No priest is going to chastize a couple for not having another kid, even if in that priest’s eyes or “in the eyes of the Church” (however that may be defined) they could have another. But saying “it’s up to you” isn’t the same thing as absolution from blame. Consider how many times I’ve told people, “The ECFs believed that sex for any other reason than procreation was venially sinful but excused on account of the sacrament.” Now, does that mean exactly the same thing as, “It’s up to you?” as if all possible choices were equally moral? Even the ECFs said, “Nobody excuses a good thing. Only bad things need excuse.” So in there eyes, a couple had the free choice to have sex for procreation only (good choice) or for other reasons (bad choice). Likewise, saying, “It’s up to the couple to decide whether or not to have more kids,” and then telling couples, “You really should have more kids if reasonably possible,” does not permit the available choices to be on equal moral footing.

The church does not specify a specific amount of children for any particular couple.(Beyond the assumption that you will try to have some)

And where, I ask, does the Church get off saying even this much? I know people who have been married for decades but had no children because they simply didn’t desire children.

It also expects GOD, not the plushness of lifestyle of the couple to be part of the decision process.

I would expect God and the plushness of lifestyle of the couple to be part of the decision process. To say, “You can’t take these particular things into account when making your decision,” makes you about as couple-friendly as the poster who said, “College funds are no excuse.”

Let me toss out an analogy and see if it connects. A guy works as a programmer and makes his way to the top of the chain at his company as a programmer. He started at level 1, made it to level 4, and there’s no level 5. Now, if he wants to get promoted, he has to become a manager, and a manager has loads more responsibilities than a programmer. In fact, the programmer looks at these responsibilities and says, “You know what? It’s not worth the title or the extra money or whatever sense of accomplishment there might come from taking a manager job – I would be miserable because I don’t like working with people.” And then somebody comes along and says, “You can’t take your personal feelings into account when making a decision like this! The benefits will outweight the costs…you just have to have faith! Most people would love a chance at a job like that!” And the programmer says, “I’m not most people. I’m not thrilled by it. Frankly, I’d much rather stay a programmer even if it means giving up prestige and money, because programming fits me better.” And the other person says, “Well, there must be something wrong with you, because most people…etc., etc.” Not everyone is “most people.” Not everyone wants to be “most people.” The idea that God makes childbearing a requirement for every married couple is just as ridiculous to me as somebody’s saying, “Everybody should like chocolate, and if you don’t like chocolate, there’s something wrong with you!”

IMO, if all we needed was the ten commandments, we wouldn’t need the rest of the bible…

Actually, all we really need are two commandments – Love God and love your neighbor. The rest of the moral commandments are just elaborations on those two.

–Mike

 

[newbetx]

Of course, but when it comes to having babies, nobody in his/her right mind would think “as many as possible” means anything beyond “as many as we think possible” because nobody (except maybe that couple on TLC with the 16 kids) thinks popping out a kid every nine months non-stop is sane behavior.–Mike

I guess I just have a different definition of “possible” than you.

I realize this. No priest is going to chastize a couple for not having another kid, even if in that priest’s eyes or “in the eyes of the Church” (however that may be defined) they could have another. But saying “it’s up to you” isn’t the same thing as absolution from blame. --Mike

Again. It has to do if God is part of the couple’s decerning process or not. If God isn’t part of the communication of the choice, then, yes, we mear mortals can persuade ourselves of almost anything.

And where, I ask, does the Church get off saying even this much? I know people who have been married for decades but had no children because they simply didn’t desire children.–Mike

The church DOES assume that the primary reason for marriage isn’t to just have sex and grow old together. It assumes (and asks) that the couple plans to have and raise children… The Church does expect that out of a couple or there is no real reason to be married. It’s why homosexual marriage makes no sense…

Their are three vocations, basically. Single (helping others), married (helping each other raise biological or adpoted children), priesthood (spiritually raising children of God). Look, this is an oversimplification but basically, that’s how the Church sees our roles as productive, loving children of God. If there is no intent to have children, then maybe you don’t need to get married. Now I know this can blow up into a big discussion of older people marrying, but I would like to hold this for another thread.

I would expect God and the plushness of lifestyle of the couple to be part of the decision process. To say, “You can’t take these particular things into account when making your decision,” makes you about as couple-friendly as the poster who said, “College funds are no excuse.”–Mike

To very many, not God BUT the plushness of lifestyle is all that matters. They treat their children like a trophy. Something to own, not nurture. Everyone here has an opin. I won’t judge you as to what you may require as a basic need. We all have varying levels of comfort. But I am reminded that we are called to be like Jesus and if that includes some suffering, well, we probably should consider that.

Let me toss out an analogy and see if it connects. A guy works as a programmer and makes his way to the top of the chain at his company as a programmer. He started at level 1, made it to level 4, and there’s no level 5. Now, if he wants to get promoted, he has to become a manager, and a manager has loads more responsibilities than a programmer. In fact, the programmer looks at these responsibilities and says, “You know what? It’s not worth the title or the extra money or whatever sense of accomplishment there might come from taking a manager job – I would be miserable because I don’t like working with people.” And then somebody comes along and says, “You can’t take your personal feelings into account when making a decision like this! The benefits will outweight the costs…you just have to have faith! Most people would love a chance at a job like that!” And the programmer says, “I’m not most people. I’m not thrilled by it. Frankly, I’d much rather stay a programmer even if it means giving up prestige and money, because programming fits me better.” --Mike

Well, If someone wants to judge a person on what they make and not doing what they enjoy, it isn’t the workers problem. Certainly no one should be made to feel that they should change to a job that is misserable and long in the hours JUST so they can have more kids. I realize it may seem like that based on what some here may say, but I can assure you the church does not teach that. However, one can easily see that many of us have more resources than we need and likely could have more children if we are able. However. One of the just causes is mental state. I’ve got three pretty normal kids and I have trouble managing that much. If I got a difficult one or many more, I’m not sure I could have handled it (queue the person telling me God won’t give me more than I can handle). Three is far from the “physically possible” number our fertility probably could have produced. Judge me? Go ahead. God knows if I did the right thing or not and I’ll find out in due time. As they say, it’s not a sin to be rich… it is a sin to be selfish. A difficult task to determine the fine line between the two.

Actually, all we really need are two commandments – Love God and love your neighbor. The rest of the moral commandments are just elaborations on those two.

–Mike

Then why did Jesus tell us all those great parables?

Edited to make fit in single post

 

[mpartyka]

The church DOES assume that the primary reason for marriage isn’t to just have sex and grow old together. It assumes (and asks) that the couple plans to have and raise children… The Church does expect that out of a couple or there is no real reason to be married…If there is no intent to have children, then maybe you don’t need to get married.

I can think of two reasons to be married apart from having kids, and they are precisely the ones you have stated:

1. The couple wants to spend the rest of their lives together.
2. The couple wants to express their love in every way possible short of having kids.

Right now what strikes me as ironic is that some who raised such vehement objections to the ECFs’ saying, “The only truly blameless and legitimate reason to have sex in marriage is to procreate,” are now telling me, “The only truly blameless and legitimate reason to get married is to procreate.” Does anybody else see an inconsistency here?

–Mike

 

[Matt33]

I can think of two reasons to be married apart from having kids, and they are precisely the ones you have stated:

1. The couple wants to spend the rest of their lives together.
2. The couple wants to express their love in every way possible short of having kids.

Right now what strikes me as ironic is that some who raised such vehement objections to the ECFs’ saying, “The only truly blameless and legitimate reason to have sex in marriage is to procreate,” are now telling me, “The only truly blameless and legitimate reason to get married is to procreate.” Does anybody else see an inconsistency here?

–Mike

Mike, both of your example are an examples of the over-romanticized, secular version of marriage. We as Christians elevate marriage to a sacrament. Why? Becuase God elevated it. If you want a buddy to grow old with or someone to stimulate your genitals then why not same sex. heck, why not multiple spouses. The bottom line is that God created the family through marriage, Now some can’t have kids… That does not nullify thier marriage, but marriage express purpose is a familial covanent, mirrorng God’s own “family” Bottom line is it has to be more than what you pointed out… Don’t you think?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Mike, both of your example are an examples of the over-romanticized, secular version of marriage. We as Christians elevate marriage to a sacrament. Why? Becuase God elevated it. If you want a buddy to grow old with or someone to stimulate your genitals then why not same sex. heck, why not multiple spouses. The bottom line is that God created the family through marriage, Now some can’t have kids… That does not nullify thier marriage, but marriage express purpose is a familial covanent, mirrorng God’s own “family” Bottom line is it has to be more than what you pointed out… Don’t you think?

Maybe, but to me your counter-exemplar seems like considerably less. And the love of a married couple sans children isn’t “a buddy to grow old with or someone to stimulate your genitals,” any more than your ideal of marriage is “mutually enabling child-spawning mechanisms.”

 

[Matt33]

Maybe, but to me your counter-exemplar seems like considerably less. And the love of a married couple sans children isn’t “a buddy to grow old with or someone to stimulate your genitals,” any more than your ideal of marriage is “mutually enabling child-spawning mechanisms.”

Certainly it would depend on who you are talking to about thier idea of marriage. In a society with fewer children and huge divorce rates it is a complex issue. I have known people who do view it as a buddy or as a stimulation. However for this issue and thread perhaps you should clarify your view on marriage. Yes, what do YOU think it is about?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Certainly it would depend on who you are talking to about thier idea of marriage. In a society with fewer children and huge divorce rates it is a complex issue. I have known people who do view it as a buddy or as a stimulation. However for this issue and thread perhaps you should clarify your view on marriage. Yes, what do YOU think it is about?

Well, suppose I’d call it a sacramental union of love between a man & woman that mirrors the love between Christ and His church. I don’t think of it, or as a spouse, as a mere instrument or excuse for ulterior purposes–not for mere companionship or sexual gratification, and not necessarily for the siring of children. Like the love of Christ for His church, it is gratuitous, and not a means to an end.

My $0.02 as you requested, for what it’s worth, no guarantees of quality, no warranty plan offered.

 

[Matt33]

Well, suppose I’d call it a sacramental union of love between a man & woman that mirrors the love between Christ and His church. I don’t think of it, or as a spouse, as a mere instrument or excuse for ulterior purposes–not for mere companionship or sexual gratification, and not necessarily for the siring of children. Like the love of Christ for His church, it is gratuitous, and not a means to an end.

My $0.02 as you requested, for what it’s worth, no guarantees of quality, no warranty plan offered.

Thanks, I like your deffinition. Exept the part about children. Keep using the analogy of Christ and His Church. Christ wants His Church to grow. Correct? And Christ and His Church are all about fruits, right. Well if God would give a couple the fruits, how is it marital to say no. To command what those gifts are, to reap the benifits without contributing? No that is not what we were created for. To give (like Christ) all of you, to your “Church” To die to your needs and wants and focus only on your spouse and your kids. That is the model I think God intended when he instituted family.
If you think about it God really had no other reason to make marriage a sacrament exept to further his Children. To create saints’ to create love, to create sacrifice… That is marriage.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Thanks, I like your deffinition. Exept the part about children. Keep using the analogy of Christ and His Church. Christ wants His Church to grow. Correct? And Christ and His Church are all about fruits, right. Well if God would give a couple the fruits, how is it marital to say no. To command what those gifts are, to reap the benifits without contributing? No that is not what we were created for. To give (like Christ) all of you, to your “Church” To die to your needs and wants and focus only on your spouse and your kids. That is the model I think God intended when he instituted family.
If you think about it God really had no other reason to make marriage a sacrament exept to further his Children. To create saints’ to create love, to create sacrifice… That is marriage.

Thanks very much. Still, hope you won’t take offense if the “Christ and His Church” >> “have kids” analogy strikes me as mighty tenuous. And I understand that marriage is not about self or about one’s own desires, but there are many ways to “die to your needs and wants”–must this allegedly salutary suffering always come in the form of children? And if neither spouse much likes them, then this sacrifice comes not only at one’s own expense, but at the spouse’s–I’m not sure in that case how “marital” it is to say yes. I’ll need to mull over whether this is really the only reason God could have for making it a sacrament. It still looks, tastes, and smells like making one’s spouse into a means to a diapered end.

 

[Matt33]

"–must this allegedly salutary suffering always come in the form of children? .

No It can’t and in infertile people it doesn’t. But in the vast majority of marrieds who want to engage in a procreative act then one must not put stipulations on that act. " I want to orgasm but I don’t want to wipe a bottom" doesnt equate a selfless Christ mirroring and holy marriage. Nor would a couple who is self giving be able to argue the other ways to be self giving but only to a point of thier wants.

 

[Matt33]

It still looks, tastes, and smells like making one’s spouse into a means to a diapered end.

Tastes? EWE
I dont think it does. It affirms love and self giving in a Christ centered model doing what God created us to do.
One thing that can be used to find out if something is Holy is if the ENTIRE world did it would we thrive as people. If everyone decide marriage was not about having kids we would die, but if everyone decided the opposite we would not die.

 

[mpartyka]

Matt33,

In response to my writing:

I can think of two reasons to be married apart from having kids, and they are precisely the ones you have stated:

1. The couple wants to spend the rest of their lives together.
2. The couple wants to express their love in every way possible short of having kids.

you replied:

Mike, both of your example are an examples of the over-romanticized, secular version of marriage. We as Christians elevate marriage to a sacrament.

But “elevating marriage to a sacrament” is not equivalent to “requiring the couple to at least try to have children,” is it? I must confess I don’t actually know what it means for something to be “elevated to a sacrament,” but considering that all Jesus did at the wedding at Cana was (1) show up and (2) turn water into wine, said “elevation” could hardly amount to a procreation mandate.

I also must confess that one of the barriers to my getting married several years back was my would-be fiancee’s reluctance to have kids. I at least wanted one, but she was of the mind that she could do without. I swayed her to the point where she said, “Okay, I guess I could pop out a kid after a couple years or so,” which was hardly the positive note of enthusiasm I was looking for, but which wasn’t a “game over” negative response, either. She and I broke up over other issues besides kids, so that conflict never had the opportunity to run its course, but the point is that there do exist people who want marriage but not kids, and I’ve met several of them, and some of them have been married a very, very long time. Now, I can look at a voluntarily childless marriage and think to myself, “Wow…I can’t believe they’re choosing to miss out on having a kid! I’m not sure I’d even get married at all if having a kid weren’t part of the deal, too!” but I can also recognize that’s just my opinion, and I don’t speak for everybody. I can easily see (and have in fact seen) how a man and a woman can have a life together without children, and far be it from me to begrudge them that – it’s their decision, just as my refusal to get married if kids aren’t part of the deal is my decision.

“I want to orgasm but I don’t want to wipe a bottom” doesnt equate a selfless Christ mirroring and holy marriage.

Then I ask you (because I don’t recall your personal stance on the subject), how do a couple using NFP and a couple using ABC differ at all with regard to motive, given that “yes orgasm, no bottom-wipe” is the goal of each?

One thing that can be used to find out if something is Holy is if the ENTIRE world did it would we thrive as people. If everyone decide marriage was not about having kids we would die, but if everyone decided the opposite we would not die.

Doesn’t logically follow. It was proclaimed at the Council of Trent that virginity constitutes the higher course of life than the path of marriage, but if everybody were to pursue virginity, then the race would die out. So “contributes to the survival of the human race” and “good” are not necessarily synonymous. (Indeed, some ECFs even said that because the end of the world was near, there was no need for Christians to continue propogating the race – children could easily be adopted from heathen parents who had too many to raise – and so there really was no need for marriage anymore, save for concupiscence.)

–Mike

 

[Le_Cracquere]

No It can’t and in infertile people it doesn’t. But in the vast majority of marrieds who want to engage in a procreative act then one must not put stipulations on that act. " I want to orgasm but I don’t want to wipe a bottom" doesnt equate a selfless Christ mirroring and holy marriage. Nor would a couple who is self giving be able to argue the other ways to be self giving but only to a point of thier wants.

Well, I think you’re coming sort of close to it there. There are people who, shockingly, consider love for one’s spouse and love for children to be fairly distinct species of affection, and don’t expect them to be intimately tied any more than you’d demand that someone who plays golf should inevitably be obliged to practice calligraphy. Loving one’s spouse and loving one’s children have always seemed like two separate faculties, and my experiences & observations suggest that they aren’t necessarily correlated–to the tiny extent they are, in fact, it often seems to be a mildly inverse correlation.

Tastes? EWE
I dont think it does. It affirms love and self giving in a Christ centered model doing what God created us to do.
One thing that can be used to find out if something is Holy is if the ENTIRE world did it would we thrive as people. If everyone decide marriage was not about having kids we would die, but if everyone decided the opposite we would not die.

Not to be abrasive, but are you positive you want to follow through the implications of that one? If everyone decided to take holy orders, our species would also die out. If everyone practiced medicine for a living, there’d be no farmers, and we’d die out. If everyone practiced law … well okay, I grant you THAT might be pretty unholy. But you see my point.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If everyone decided to take holy orders, our species would also die out.

Not necessarily - remember married men can be ordained deacons and priests*, so the species would go on!

*Remember the Eastern Churches! and that the Latin Church can and does relax the discipline whenever She feels the need! and that Deacons are in Holy Orders!

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Far be it from me to impugn the blessed Tom, Al, & Theo, or present company!

Still, you’ve reminded me of a small church function I was at two years ago, when the speaker mentioned his membership in the local Association of Christian Attorneys. Naturally, someone had to call out, “Who’s the other guy?”

 

[mpartyka]

My personal favorite:

A cruise ship sinks in the middle of shark-infested waters, and the only survivors are huddled in a tiny life raft. Problem is, the life raft can’t hold them all, so one of the men volunteers to go overboard and cling to the life raft so the rest can stay safely inside. The rest of the survivors say, “You’re crazy! These are shark-infested waters! There are shark fins circling us already!” The volunteer says, “Just let me try.” So overboard he goes, and, miraculously, the sharks leave him alone until the rescue boat arrives. The other survivors ask the volunteer, “Why in the world did the sharks leave you alone?” The volunteer replied, “I’m a lawyer. Professional courtesy.”

–Mike