Championable | Fatherhood, Parenting, Love, and Politics.: Abortion, Birth Control, %u201CRespect Life.%u201D
Every so often I get all wound up religiously. This post didn't do it, but a comment on it did. And instead of insiting a comment riot, I thought I would give my thoughts on the answers of Steve here.
This is what he said: (I have placed in bold the item that pissed me off)
I wish I was so lucky as to have a local parish priest as bold as yours. You're right in saying that we don't even know whether it (i.e., ESC therapies) will work is the very last reason we should oppose it. In fact, I would think the opposite argument more convincing: It may work... and thereby create actual demand (not yet pursued by much in the way of venture capital... which is why these researchers need the gov't to bankroll their Faustian playground) to procure and utilize "human tissues".
I sort of understand the “natural law” argument. But frankly, if we’re not supposed to modify the way we’ve been set up by God, then we should probably stop wearing clothes, riding in cars and airplanes, and DEFINITELY stop with all this “medical care.”
Well then, you clearly don't understand the "natural law" argument.
Regarding the question of whether the "goal" (i.e., that of NFP vis-a-vis artificial contraception "is identical: having sex for fun, and to avoid conception," I think you are missing a couple of points:
1) if a couple use NFP to avoid conception (for just causes, see(2)), then they are, by definition, not having sex for fun to avoid conception; and
2) NFP is not a licit method of contraception, but rather a licit method to delay conception or space out children for just reasons. A fine point, perhaps, put a clear one to those willing to think with the Church.
Nevertheless, if one cannot see the difference between NFP and contraception, then I would urge you not to practice it.
The idea that the Church's teaching on contraception is causative (or even correlative) with ills such as neglect, HIV, and murder is standard left-wing agitprop, and not worthy of any response above mockery.
I think the letter on the whole to be disingenuous. You are not "truly baffled", but have instead rather made up your mind on the matter, as you obviously have in other matters, in direct opposition to the Church's clear and univocal teaching throughout her history.
This is a matter that gets me every time. That this man finds fault with Rich and his questioning of the teachings of the church. Are Catholics not Christians, believing in the idea that Chirst died for thier sins, and that he is the son of God and all that? Are they not supposed to be following the teachings of Christ? Christ. Not the church. And I seriously doubt that Jesus would support what I view as an attack on Rich's faith. Something about he who is without sin casting the first stone. He is being called out for arguing a life or death point with an institution run by humans. He is being called leftist (which in some circles is a serious insult) for looking at data that supports the fact that the use of barrier contraception prevents the spread of disease, and that by banning the use of all contraception you are perpetuating the issue. This is a well documented fact. Rich is not saying everyone should go out and get on the pill. He is questioning whether in a world where humans are intelligent enough to stop and check to see if they are fertile by measuring secretions (my sister took the classes. It's all pretty gross. In fact, it migh work just because it's a turn off, "Not tonight dear, my secretions are very elastic and we aren't financially ready for kids yet") before engaging in intercourse, perhaps they should be allowed to use another method in thier family planning. To space out the children so to speak. If we are going to jump to conclusions, then lets just go ahead and say that people who can't or don't want to have children shouldn't have sex. (in which case the Magic Pirate Head's prediction that I will never have sex again might actually be valid)
People are going to have sex. The antiquated idea that it occurs only for the purpose of procreation is as rediculous as the belief once held that women don't enjoy the act, that they should do it out of "duty to thier husbands". We are, in essence, animals. Animals eat and fuck. Humans have learned that while they may not always be able to control the urge to do the latter, they can control the outcome. They can be safe about it and save lives by stopping the spread of disease. they can enrich the lives of society as a whole by not bringing more people into the world than it can comfortably feed. The Bible was written in a time when a child rarely made it to adulthood. in order to purpetuate the species, we could not afford to miss any opportunity for conception. This is no longer the case, and I believe that Rich sees this. Some people do not follow blindly. Some like to think for themselves.
Galileo was burned at the stake for insisting that the earth revolved around the sun. Do not call Rich a bad Catholic because he questions the Church. (and Steve, I am not attacking you, only your words. They could have been voiced by anyone) Rich is, from what I have seen, a man who found his faith in God thorough the teachings of the Catholic Church. We all find faith in our own way. Questioning doesn't make him less of a good man, a good father, and an honest businessman. It doesn't make him unfaithful to God. Is there not a commandment that says "Thou shalt not put any God before me".and I seem to remember something about how you aren't supposed to worship false idols. I am not questioning your faith, I am not bashing the religion. Any institution that helps guide a person closer to God is by definition a good thing in my world. But do not confuse the church with God, or the teachings of the men in charge with the teachings of your Christ. In the end, the church is a building. God, eternal. And while you are arguing that Rich should not disagree with the Church, ask yourself if you are following the teachings of God or the Building.