Archive for the ‘Abortion-Contraception’ Category

Arguments for Contraception

Sunday, December 2nd, 2012

From a reader:  “My wife has received the following arguments for contraception. Could you help me provide solid responses to these arguments? I need to help her. I need to help our marriage.”

The wife’s comments are in italics followed by my [John's] response.

Sex is not just for making babies, it also makes a couple closer and brings enjoyment.
I agree, but that’s not an argument for contraception. Sexual union is intended by God to be exclusively a marriage act.  Within marriage it ought to be a true marriage act, a renewal of their marriage covenant and commitment of love, for better and for worse.  In God’s plan, the marriage act is both for bonding and babies.  It is God Himself who put togethr in one act what we call making love and making babies.  What Jesus says about marriage applies also to the marriage act: What God has put together, let no one take apart.  Contraception takes apart what God Himself has put together, and that’s wrong.

Contraception allows responsible family planning.
The morality of an action is not determined solely by a person’s intention.  See more below.

Contraception avoids unwanted pregnancies.
Again, because it takes apart what God has put together, it is an immoral way of achieving that goal.

God made people in his own image, wanting them to be in control and make rational decisions (such as when to have children).
If you want to know what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God, look at Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the saints.  If you want to know what it means to act contrary to being in the image and likeness of God, look at Adam and Eve and Jezebel and Herod and Herodias etc. We are not made to be in total control.  We are called to be stewards of the gifts God has given us.  St. Paul wrote: “You are not your own; you were bought with a price.  So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 9-19-20).

Christians should think of the well-being of existing children and the effect that another pregnancy would have on them.
That is an argument for using natural family planning.

There is no fundamental difference between contraception and NFP since the motive is the same in both cases – i.e. avoidance of pregnancy.
Completely false.  The end does not justify the means.  A good motive does not equalize the various ways of achieving that goal.  Contraception remains the immoral taking apart of what God Himself has put together.  Natural family planning respects the God-given meaning of the marriage act.

The sin of Onan isn’t about contraception but about lack of fraternal charity.
Not true.  Three people — Onan, his father, and his younger brother — violated the so-called Law of the Levirate, but only one of them was killed.  Namely, Onan, who was the only one to engage in the contraceptive act of withdrawal and spilling his seed.  Furthermore, the punishment for the violation of the Levirate is clearly spelled out in Deuteronomy (25:5-10).  The aggrieved widow can take off the shoe of her offending brother-in-law and spit in his face.  Embarassing but hardly a death sentence.

John: I have replied above to the one-line “arguments” with some very short arguments.  You need to read my article dealing with the Sin of Onan at our website.  You would also do well to read and reread Chapter 1 of our manual,  Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach, listed on the home page.  To go further, read my Sex and the Marriage Covenant, also listed on the home page.  You and your wife both need to read The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor.  Also on the home page.

Seven Day Bible RosaryGreat stocking stuffer for Christmas!

John F. Kippley
www.NFPandmore.org

The logic of contraception

Sunday, November 25th, 2012

One of the great evils of contraception is that it establishes as a working principle that modern man and woman can  take apart what God has put together.  That’s what contraception is all about — taking apart what God has put together in the marriage act.  Once a culture accepts that “philosophy,” it cannot say a firm “No” to any imaginable behavior between consenting persons.  In that way of rationalizing, all that counts is mutual consent so adultery, fornication, sodomy, prostitution become logically permissible.  The natural law is abandoned.  One dissenter wrote that his rejection of Catholic teaching on birth control also involved his rejection of the natural law, and that meant he had no way to say no even to bestiality — humans having sex with animals.  That is the logic of contraceptive birth control.

John F. Kippley
Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach
Sex and the Marriage Covenant
Battle-Scarred: Justice Can Be Elusive

2012 Election: Moral Issues Are Critical

Sunday, September 30th, 2012

by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Much attention was given at the Democratic National Convention held recently in Charlotte, N.C., to the fact that all references to God had been purged from the draft version of the party platform. After outcries of protest from outside as well as within the Democratic Party, the sentence with the same reference to God used in 2008 was restored to read, “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Before anyone relaxes and concludes that all is well now that the Democratic Party Platform contains a single passing reference to God, the way that this was done should give us pause. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for the voice vote three times because each time the sound level for the “ayes” and the “nays” sounded about even, far short of the two-thirds necessary according to convention rules to amend the platform. That did not stop the convention chairman from declaring, “The ayes have it!”

What is troubling about that is the blatant disregard for the rules and for the apparent wishes of about half the delegates. The reference to God is back in the platform apparently because President Obama wanted it back in. That may be fine for now, but if a future president wants references to God taken out, apparently that can be done regardless of the wishes of the delegates if that is what The Leader wants. That does not bode well for democracy in the Democratic Party.

Even more troubling is that this whole discussion about God in the platform is a distraction from more disturbing matters that have been included in the platform. In 1992 Presidential candidate Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That was the party’s official position until 2008. Apparently “rare” is so last century that it had to be dropped, because now the Democratic Party Platform says that abortion should be “safe and legal.” Moreover the Democratic Party Platform supports the right to abortion “regardless of the ability to pay.” Well, there are only three ways for that to happen: either taxpayers will be required to fund abortion, or insurance companies will be required to pay for them (as they are now required to pay for contraception), or hospitals will be forced to perform them for free.

Moreover, the Democratic Party Platform also supports same-sex marriage, recognizes that “gay rights are human rights,” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267), “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.

Certainly there are “pro-choice” Republicans who support abortion rights and “Log Cabin Republicans” who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

I pray that God will give you the wisdom and guidance to make the morally right choices.

May God give us this grace. Amen.   (Bold and  italics type are the blogger’s.)  For an excellent 4 minute video on the constitution and this upcoming election, listen to this video made by teens from San Diego High School.