Thursday, January 22, 2009

The train has left the station.


Just some thoughts.
.
In 1917, Our Lady gave this message at Fatima: "If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated." I often refer to these words in reference to the sins of contraception and abortion. Few people today, aside from some faithful Catholics, admit to the fact that contraception was the first sin - in other words, it was widely accepted and practiced a good 10 years before legalized abortion.
.
Today, statistical studies are telling us that the population of most European nations has declined to such an extent they will no longer be able to replicate themselves. The emerging population is Middle-Eastern and Islamic. In effect, these European nations may be annihilated; the French, the Germans, the Dutch, Swedes, and others may indeed die out. This is not racist conjecture, it simply means European culture, as we know it, may vanish as various nationalities die out. (I'm not bothering to link to the data - these things have been published numerous times elsewhere.)
.
My point is this, the contraceptive mentality, which ushered in abortion as a contraceptive alternative, has been so ingrained in global popular culture, it seems only a miracle is able to reverse the trend. Considering the stats dealing with populations in recession, I find it interesting that the so-called third secret of Fatima was to be released no earlier than 1960; the explanation given, it would be more understandable at that time.
.
As everyone knows, it was in the very early 1960's the first contraceptive pill was introduced and widely used. The pill changed sexual morality entirely. Men and women could freely use sex for recreation rather than procreation, without consequence. I believe it is no coincidence that non-reproductive homosexual sex gradually became accepted, or at least tolerated as an indirect result.
.
Consciously or unconsciously, heterosexuals would come to understand the non-generative sex they engaged in was for all practical purposes, not much different from same-sex sexual relations. Thus, as any armchair cultural anthropologist can figure out, sex was an activity one could participate in for pleasure - not just reproduction - and one need not be married or straight to enjoy it. I'm not implying that people didn't engage in sex for pleasure before the pill; however, it is a fact the pill generated widespread promiscuity and a general decline in morals. I'm not unaware that couples "making love" while practising artificial contraception, may also be in love with one another. Nevertheless, straight or gay, their sexual activity is disordered. .
.
Indeed the pleasure principle endures today, and more or less dominates contemporary attitudes toward sex and reproductive rights.
.
Yep. That train left the station.

15 comments:

  1. Good points, Terry. Which makes me think of something I have long told my friends: since Catholic straight couples contracept just like their non-Catholic peers and in equal huge numbers AND since it has been and is parish priests en masse who have openly criticized Roman prohibitions about contraception....then allow me to ask and to bitch...

    WHY then does the Vatican (and Catholics on the right-side of things)harass homosexuals as the detroyers of traditional family, marriage, morality, etc? WHY doesn't the Vatican issue a PUBLIC directive (liek they did for gays) declaring that ANY MAN who supports, promotes or approves contraception as a viable option is UNFIT for the priesthood?

    WHY do the US Bishops focus on battling same-sex marriage for their energies (I happen to agree with them on this)INSTEAD of going for the vast majority of their flock who cohabitate and contracept? Where is the REAL and BIGGEST danger to marriage and family life coming from?

    I guess its just easier to pick on the homosexual underdogs who make up maybe what...5% at MOST of the population?

    Ok thanks I am done bitching....for now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, Indeed! God bless you for picking up that thread. That was my implication in this sentence, "Nevertheless, straight or gay, their sexual activity is disordered."

    Where have the bishops been since 1960, and especially since Humanae Vitae was promulgated, when many clergy either ignored it or opposed it outright. If they would have been faithful to their calling, I doubt abortion would have become an issue of choice.

    Thanks for your great comment. (Just for the record, I too disapprove of same-sex marriage.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Terry, when I was at my parents this past week I re-read books my mother has about the Fatima message and one author noted that nations are currently en route to annihilation (as predicted by Our Lady) via artificial contraception (essentially all of Europe)---just as you said. I had just finished reading Dietrich von Hildebrand's "Purity" where he notes that the sexual sphere is different than all spheres of pleasure--meaning when sex is abused in any way there are grave ramifications, ramifications. Hence, suicides, abortion, divorce, abuse of all forms occur when sex is abused. Sexual relations are for marriage. God made these relations to be procreative and unitive--and it is a serious moral error to think it is like all the other pleasures (food, drink).
    I am tired of the lies.
    God is the God of life and of love!
    No teachings on earth protect and respect the dignity of women as do the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church!

    GK Chesterton: "What is quaintly called Birth Control . . . is in fact, of course, a scheme for preventing birth in order to escape control." ("The Surrender upon Sex" The Well and the Shallows)

    "Normal and real birth control is called self control." ("Social Reform vs. Birth Control")

    "We can always convict such people of sentimentalism by their weakness for euphemism. The phrase they use is always softened and suited for journalistic appeals. They talk of free love when they mean something quite different, better defined as free lust. But being sentimentalists they feel bound to simper and coo over the word "love." They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions." ("Obstinate Orthodoxy" The Thing)

    More by GKC on birth control:
    http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/chesterton_birthcontrol_oct08.asp

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Susan for your equally great comments. Our tolerance of artificial contraception, practiced by millions of Catholic Americans my age and younger, is the reason abortion on demand is legal and is just another choice for women.
    .
    And in my opinion, women who have used contraception, encouraged others to do so, or provided it for their Catholic daughters, have as much blood on their manicured Catholic hands as what that crazy woman who sent me that email the other day said regarding Catholics who voted for Obama have. (Absolved in the confessional or not - we need to remember what we are made of.)
    .
    Today is an official day of prayer and penance for Catholics in the Untited States and I hope we are all on our knees, because none of us are without sin.
    .
    Sorry for the rant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for reminding me about this being the Day of Prayet and Penance for Life....I got the prayer part down, its that dang penance that allows eludes me!

    ReplyDelete
  6. michael r.12:06 PM

    Great stuff from Chesterton. Obviously, he wrote from a time and place before Paul VI & Humane Vitae. The contracept mentality seems pervasive in the world today. I do have to admit that I'm a bit troubled by NFP as promoted by many in the Church. I believe that Chesterton would be aghast by the idea. It's basically an attempt to thwart nature. I don't understand how it is not birth control.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're so right!
    May God help us.
    We need Him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That comment was for Terry, not Michael r.

    Michael r, I think if you read Chesterton further you would see that he says true birth control is self control.

    NFP is sanctioned by the Church and is periodic abstinence (used for serious reasons) and it shouldn't be undertaken with a "contraceptive mentality" for every marital act must be undertaken with due respect for the Creator, meaning: "I may become a mother/father with this act" should always exist in the mind/kind of a tip of the hat to God who is the author of life and who can intervene and create life when there are no artificial barriers placed in the way---but there are entire books written on this subject and I will screw this up attempting to explain things on a brief blog comment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David1:26 PM

    I think it is very important to remember on this topic that sex is not ONLY for procreation. It is equally for the mutual union, bonding, etc of the spouses.

    BUT this also raises an interesting question. IF the Church allows non-fertile married couples (such as past the age or unable to conceive due to medicla reaons)to continue their sex lives as morally good (which it does in light of the purpose of bonding) THEN....

    Sex without ANY possibility (even remote NFP possibility) of conception is not immoral. So I guess this helps us to see that procreation is only ONE aspect of authentic morally-good sexuality but it is not the whole enchilada.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David made some exellent points that I never even considered.

    Terry said;"And in my opinion, women who have used contraception, encouraged others to do so,"

    Your right they sure do !
    And they don't take kindly to any opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David3:31 PM

    Should add to my previous post: therefore, it seems to me that the evil within contraception is the intention to directly oppose divine intervention for the conception of life. Intention always plays an enormous (though not exclusive) role in the moral goodness of an action.

    So the non-fertile couple of simply continuing their bonding, not intending to oppose life. Could we also say that the homosexual couple (presuming genuine commitment of affectionate bond and not recreational gay sex) are NOT acting in intentional opposition to procreation but are expressing physically what the bond they share in the only way they have of somehow participating in this inherent human need for interpersonal union?

    CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" has an excellent section on morality and he even uses homosexuality as one example of people acting on all they CAN act upon: their "raw material" as he calls it. NOW anyone who knows CS Lewis know he is not advocating something contrary to Christian morality but if you have the book go check out that section.

    So I guess my bottom line here (sorry no gay-joke intended)is that while disorders in human sexuality has things in common, we cannot lump them all together as the same immoral or moral thing. So the contracepting couple who are emotionally-healthy in their heterosexuality and yet chose to contracept are in a WAY different moral neighborhood than the homosexual couple expressing physically what exists between them spiritually-emotionally.

    WOW that was kind of confusing...hope it made some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. David - I am so sorry, but I think you are going beyond what I was trying to express. I was simply trying to say that I believe the practice of contraception is an abuse of sexuality and is in essence a disorder just as much as homosexual activity is a disorder - albeit different in kind. They are both immoral and unnatural acts and closed to life. I must say I never worry about which sin is worse than another. Every sin is disorder.

    While I wrote this I wasn't thinking of the marital union between a man and a woman who may have infertility issues. In such a case, it is understood they continue to act according to the complimentarity of husband and wife, naturally expressing their love in accord with God's providential design. Homosexual sex is by its very expression an act in "intentional opposition to procreation".

    The homosexual "couple" can best demonstrate or express their love for one another by striving towards sanctity of life and union with God. Their "bond" of friendship is nobly expressed by helping and supporting one another in the work of sanctification.

    A disordered desire for "interpersonal union" between kindred spirits, affectionately and emotionally attached to one another, is only possible in the chaste communion of the faithful, that is the Eucharist.

    A 'good intention' is no excuse for engaging in lustful acts between same-sex couples who as you suggest have made a "genuine commitment of affectionate bond" and then calling such activity "making love" or an expression of mutual love. Such acts are so contrary to the sanctity of marriage and the union it represents, they have been called abominations in the sight of God.

    Such misunderstandings of human sexuality are evidence of the diabolic delusion that has swept the world; That somehow a homosexual couple is showing their love for one another by "expressing physically what bond they share in the only way they have of somehow participating in this inherent human need for interpersonal union." I can only respond to such a sentiment by insisting it is wrong - it is not the will of God.

    As St. Paul clearly states, "the will of God is our sanctification."

    The human need for union is the manifestation of God's loving will and individual call to each soul, calling us to union with Him through Christ, our sanctification.

    "Interpersonal" or "physical union" is reserved for the intimate union of love between a man and woman, open to life. It is not given or permitted to other men and women outside of the marital bond.

    I so much do not intend or desire to offend anyone by my words here, and I apologize if anyone is offended, especially you David. I respect your input to this discussion and apologize if I misunderstood you.

    However, I need to make it clear that I will not and can not deny the teaching of the Church on faith and morals one iota. The Church is the ark of salvation in these troubling times of doubt and deception.

    As St. Josemaria Escriva said, "Do not let your cowardly and easy going ways deceive you so easily. Feel the urgency of making your conduct consistent with the norms of faith. We do not aspire to secondclass sanctity, for there is no such thing... Saints are not born, they are made. Our age is an age of general demoralization, of compromises, and discouragement, of license and anarchy, an age that more than ever needs saints. We must struggle to the point of heroism, in the strongest and most literal sense of the word."

    Therefore we need to be faithful to the Christian vocation,
    "concientiously living its ultimate consequences, neither dragging heels nor spinning out excuses."

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David, I wrote, "and then calling such activity "making love" or an expression of mutual love." That reads as if I am saying you wrote those words, you didn't, I did - I just joined them to what you had written.

    ReplyDelete
  14. David9:48 AM

    Hey Terry..no offense at all taken. If poeople can't ask questions and seek clarification and disagree....then man how can any relationships exist, including e-communication. I am not one to write someone off because we might disagree on issues.

    I agree that homosexuality is a disorder of the emotions, just as being born with one arm is a disorder of the body. BOth are a handicap no matter how that disability got there (i.e., born that way or developed later on). People have to live with the cards they are dealt, that is, with their "raw material" and do the beat they can. Only God who knows the heart can know who is truly living by the sincerity of their belief.

    So I think we CAN say that in general homosexual acts (like other immoral sexual acts) are objectively sinful but we can never know just who IS in sin and who isn't even if their external actions encourage us to make such conclusions.

    I like St. Joan of Arc's answer at trial when asked is she was in the "state of grace" for it sums up this theology of grace better than anything I have ever read: "If I am, may God keep me there, if I am not may be place me there."

    Too many of us go around thinking we know who is and who isn't in a right relationship with God, i.e., state of grace...including me a lot of the time. May St. Joan's wisdom teach us all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whew! Thanks David. Aren't I nuts though? I have a way of alienating people with my views and I hate it when I do that. I'm glad you understand. I love St. Joan of Arc's quote and so appreciate your reminder. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.