Thursday, May 20, 2010

Contraception - the original sin of modern sexuality.

The logical link between abortion and homosexuality.
From Ignatius Insight Scoop:
He who “devalues” the family by promot­ing promiscuity and perversion devalues the very fabric of society. He who denies the biological differences of men and women, and the unique roles each must fill, rebels against nature. The Soviets boasted that the equality of the genders in their realm was perfect since women were permitted to work in coal mines. In the United States, too, women are now accepted as combat­ants in the armed forces as equally as men are.
Another danger lurks in the emancipa­tion of sexual deviations. Our sexuality is of a rather “plastic” nature—even in its nor­mal course. For instance, a male will more easily fall in love with an extremely slender girl, if thinness is the fashion, or with one of opposite bodily qualities, as in the fashion of Rubens’s age, if that is the day’s trend. Perversions or other forms of immorality often become fashions and can destroy na­tions. For instance, generations of father­less children from single mothers will likely lead to social perdition.
Contemporary liberalism reveals its he­donistic character with the mass murder of the unborn. What we have in the West is Childermass of “unwanted life,” similar to the practices of National and International Socialism in Europe and East Asia. What did Nicolas Gomez Davila, brightest thinker on the Right, tell us? “The cult of man must be celebrated with human sacri­fices.” As a result, pregnant women no longer walk as cradles but as swinging cof­fins. - Liberalism in America

The logical link between abortion and homosexuality is there, if only we are willing to look. Likewise, as Dr. Raymond Dennehy argues,

The widespread practice of contraception is a major force behind the rapidly growing acceptance of homosexuality in western societies as a natural, sexual orientation. Bluntly stated, the justification for the one counts as the justification for the other. Contraception formally separates the sex act from procreation, insofar as it allows a couple to have sex at any time without the possibility of conception. Therein lies its link with homosexuality. Sexual intercourse between homosexuals and between heterosexuals using contraceptives is identical in this, they are both by their very nature sterile. The increasing legislative and judicial pressure for the right of same-sex couples to marry is simply the actualization of the contraceptive mentality. - Ignatius
Thanks to Fr. Martin S.J. for the heads-up on Carl Olson's Ignatius post.


  1. Hoo-rah! and Duh! now you're using you're noggin

  2. opps! how do u spel ur

  3. Austringer11:41 PM

    This connection is what I was referring to earlier -- that abortion and same-sex marriage were fruit from the same tree: the tree is contraception.

  4. Exactly Austringer - I had my comments up on this post but took them down because the material speaks for itself and more plainly than I'm capable of doing.

    The point today is not persecution of individuals, but opposition to the general acceptance and political changes generated by the movements based upon these practices. There have always been homosexuals, people have always contracepted and aborted - but the practice was always viewed as sinful and disapproved of - and it will always be sinful and disapproved of by the Church.

    Nevertheless, general acceptance and widespread practice has led to the breakdown of general morality and culture. Society wants these behaviors and practices normalized, nevertheless these matters remain grave sins. Sin is insidious and widespread sin threatens the common good - not just one's eternal salvation.

  5. BTW - Isn't the title of this post the best?

  6. Pope Paul VI in "Humanae vitae" (1968) prophesies that the separation of the procreative and unitive in married sexual intercourse would create further problems regarding sex outside of marriage, homosexual relations, abortion, the disruption of the family, divorce, societal chaos.
    And I'm just listing what I remember.
    When sexual intercourse within marriage is not protected by the divine and natural law, then, it is logical that other forms of sexual intimacy are not only possible but licit.
    The teachings of the Church in this regard are the protection of authentic mutual self-giving in married intercourse; any barrier or perversion of this "sacred" union will create all kinds of trouble, like a ripple effect.
    Contraception in effect, says, "I want my pleasure; you are a means to it". Proper married love says, "I love you; I give you myself; I want to be a parent with you, even if this act does not result in conception."
    Natural family planning is a very reliable means of regulating and spacing births; there is no reason for Catholics to practice contraception. That may sound harsh,coming from a consecrated celibate.
    But the teaching on contraception also regulates the sexual lives of single persons and celibates.
    No deliberate genital activity outside of marriage; period.
    Love is the goal of every life;
    sexual intercourse is not.
    The modern mentality does not accept this.
    We, as Catholics, must.
    And yes, Terry, the title of this is the best!

  7. Aceman12:36 PM

    19 and counting...

    OK--So Dr. Dennehy compares the use of contraceptives by straight couples to civil partnership/marriage by gay couples.

    Obvious, even to the dumbest of the dumb, gay couples cannot conceive unless they surrogate or adopt an unwanted child (more culture of death issues). The point of lobbying to legislate marriage or unions for them is not to allow them to conceive (or not), but to give those that are with a person that they love and share their life, equal standing and protection under the law, as straight couples have. No?

    Their physical relationship may be sterile, but their love is not.

    And those straight couples that use contraception. Maybe they have more than they can handle or afford already? Maybe some know that they are not cut out to be parents, and maybe some are just selfish. Couples may use them at the start of their marriage because they're not ready, or use them after they had what they thought was enough children.

    I'm sorry, call me a heretic, or what ever you like, but these issues are not as black and white as some make them out to be. And I certainly don't see them as being equal, anymore than I see gay marriage and abortion as being equal and insidious. Taking a life, whether by abortion, war, capital punishment, murder, or abject poverty leading to disease and death, is definitely much more serious than allowing two people to live their life together.


  8. I love the counting thing Ace.

    I honestly do not think the pope is saying two people cannot live their life together - nor do I say that - but you can't truthfully call it marriage. Start counting again. I like you Ace - so please don't get mad.

  9. Aceman1:49 PM

    I like you too T-man. You never make me angry, so relax. I enjoy my visits to your blog home. I won't stop reading you, sorry!

    And I like the Duggars too. That's why I called my post 19 and counting. I like the way that American pop culture's fascination with their reproductive proclivities got them their own series, and a new house, and bus, and's a shame that they're not Catholics though. Couldn't you just see all the girls in mantillas praying the rosary and the boys in cassocks and lace cottas serving mass for Fr. Z? But at least they pray, heads bowed and eyes closed. Can't wait to see if they get to number 20!

    I don't call it marriage or matrimony in the sense of the church you know. I don't particularly care what it's called. Personally I think that the government should not call heterosexual civil marriages marriage either. If we lived in a theocracy or had a state church... But that's another post...

    No, the pope didn't say they couldn't live their life together, but it's damn sure, pretty clear that if you're gay, you're celibate, SO you can't live your lives together. Ah well...happy Friday! Ace

  10. Without being totally "scurrilous" here, I must make this comment:
    sexual contact is not meant only for pleasure/friendship/partnership. The "sterility" of homosexual relations and contraception points to a deeper reality: God means for us to respect our "fertility"; simply having an orgasm with another does not, in fact, mean, love. There are much deeper issues here than merely the love between two people.
    If a man/man, woman/woman, man/woman outside of marriage have sexual intimacy it is wrong, both by natural law and divine law.
    Sexual intimacy, meaning proper intercourse (man/woman) has a much more universal meaning than the subjective interaction between two people; it is about being faithful to God's plan. And to the very nature of the "structure" of human persons: one can only give one's self in a properly ordered relationship...married love is sexual; same sex love must be 'other' by the very nature of the structure of human persons. That is not merely biological, it is also psychological and emotional.
    I know that is debatable. But we are made male/female, complementary.
    Same sex love requires boundaries which includes chaste celibacy by the very nature of our human sexual complementarity.
    Being respectful of our ability to be mother/father means that we have boundaries and limitations on what the sexual act will bring about.
    Two men and two women cannot be "fruitful" in the meaning of what married intercourse is meant to be.
    Loving another is a completely different matter; one can love unconditionally and completely a person of the same sex. This is called friendship and it has all kinds of expressions.
    But sex is not one of them.
    If we unravel the meaning of human sexuality according to God's plan, we are doomed.
    It means all kinds of chaos and evil.
    That does not condemn an individual or individuals, as Terry has said.
    It means that the universal, fundamental meaning of human sexual intimacy is within marriage between a man and a woman that is indissoluble.
    That's not only for them, but for all of us.
    Consecrated celibacy witnesses to the goodness of the married life in its renunciation; it is not a condemnation of marriage, but a way to witness to the primacy of the Kingdom of God. It is not a life devoid of love; far from it...but of sexual intimacy, yes.

  11. Austringer4:21 PM

    Father, thank you for your comments!

    Aceman, the government has a legitimate reason to recognize heterosexual marriage and even grant it special privileges: the stability of society -- any society -- is closely tied to the rearing of the next generation, and children need both a mother and a father.

    Marriage is the union of two persons: persons are made of both body and spirit. The idea that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriage points to an underlying dualism which separates body and soul: two "spirits" form a union, and their bodies are just there to carry their spirit around and to experience sexual relations with. I'm not expressing myself well here, but do you understand what I am trying to say? Catholics properly reject this dualistic understanding of the human person.

  12. Say one accepts that, Aus, what's the problem, then, with civil unions? Hell, what's Pawlenty's problem with burial rights?

  13. Burial rights properly belong to next of kin.

  14. Yup, the person whom they loved, and who loved them. And so I ask again.

  15. Austringer8:54 PM

    Thom, I have to admit that I haven't given civil unions a whole lot of thought. I'd have to do a lot more reading -- pro and con -- on the subject before I'd take any firm stand one way or the other.

    I don't see that civil unions "solve" any serious problems, though -- I mean, any individual can have a legal document drawn up leaving one's possessions, etc., to anyone, or even one's pets. There are other issues that can be similarly resolved. So, I wonder if civil unions represent a solution to real problems, or are merely an incremental step towards acceptance of gay marriage. Just my thoughts, but as I stated earlier I haven't studied the subject.

  16. Property, medical decisions, end of life decisions, funerary arrangements, state tax, federal tax, inheritance, health insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, human dignity....

  17. Austringer9:55 PM


    Most of the particular matters you list could be taken care of, by individuals, with some kind of legal documentation. It's not that unusual.

    When you speak of taxes, I'm not sure what you mean.

    Again, my concern is that marriage is being re-defined in radical ways, and the acceptance of civil unions might just be one incremental means of achieving that end.

    "Human dignity"? Since Christian teaching is clear on the immorality of homosexual acts, how could it possibly be furthering "human dignity" to endorse a relationship characterized by such acts? Seems to me that that would be degrading...

  18. When referring to taxes, I'm speaking to the 1400 or so benefits that married couples receive that for which those who file as "single" are not eligible.

    As far as legal documentation goes, should people be required to carry living wills and power of attorney anytime they leave their house? Because otherwise, in the case of an accident, one partner is denied even access to visit their loved one.

    And finally, on the point of human dignity, Christian teaching is much more clear on the primacy of love. Matters of that nature are best left between two individuals, the Hebrew purity code notwithstanding.

  19. Austringer10:12 PM

    Thom, I am all for the 1400 or so benefits that married couples receive. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the government has a very real stake in promoting marriage -- the health of a society depends upon children being raised in a stabel relationship with both a mother and father.

    There may be a fundamental difference here regarding just what is the basic building block of society: the Church would hold that it is the family. Our culture would hold that it is the individual, and so the idea of granting benefits to a married couple seems preposterous. It makes perfect sense to me.

  20. Perhaps, then, only fertile couples should receive the tax benefit. Sterile couples, those who choose not to bear children, and those beyond child-bearing age should not be offered the benefit. Ditto for anyone who has divorced.

  21. Thom, I am not completely informed of civil law in this regard, but doesn't a person have a right to indicate his/her preference in regard to these matters of medical decisions, visitation rights, end of life decisions, etc.? Isn't that what "power of attorney" and other legal means of dealing with these issues provide for?
    Even in religious communities (where the whole same-sex union thing is not an issue) these matters are handled by the superiors.
    Why does a "marriage" law have to be enacted to ensure that people who are committed to one another (in whatever way) have the rights and benefits you list?
    I am asking this sincerely.

    This could also involve single men and women who have no living next of kin or choose to not include them and include a close friend as their "agents".

  22. Father, it's like I said before... who carries PoA papers? I don't. Married couples don't.

    And also like I said before, we're talking civil unions, not marriage.

  23. For those interested. Fr. Hardon SJ

  24. Austringer11:21 PM


    Most married couples have children. In those unfortunate cases of sterility, or in cases of marriage occurring after menopause, the marital act is still open to life, as well as unitive, but a physical condition (sterility or age) interferes. The marital act is still the union of two persons, body and soul.

    I would think that though the government has a vested interest in a stable family, it would be far too instrusive to enquire of married couples if they are infertile. No need to be intrusive with same-sex acts: they are, and always will be, sterile.

    In some places in Europe, they are, in fact, rewarding couples who have children. They have discovered (too late, I fear) that a culture that does not raise a generation to follow is a doomed culture.

    The pressure to accept same-sex unions does degrade the understanding of marriage, separating it ever more from its child-bearing aspect. If civil unions are a step in that direction, then I am opposed to them (though as I have said, I have not really looked carefully at the arguments from both sides).

  25. Secular Humanism has throoughly seeped into so many people's minds that they cannot see Truth, nor do they believe it exists. That is the sad state of affairs.


  26. Aus, European birth rates began to decline long before gay couples ever petitioned for marriage.

  27. Austringer10:51 AM


    Yes, I'm quite aware of that. It's the contraceptive culture. Same-sex marriage is merely the logical extension of that mentality.

  28. Aus, I like you, (and this little exchange), but I think that an assertion like that needs to be backed up. It's one thing to say it, to think it, and quite something else to present evidence that it's true.

  29. Austringer12:32 PM


    It seems quite logically sound to me: the widespread use of contraceptives has separated the sex act from procreation. I have actually come across secularists who have denied that sex is procreative: "Not for me", was one comment from a young guy that has remained stuck in my memory. This has led to a changing perception of what marriage is or should be. Instead of understanding marriage as a life-long committment between one man and one woman who beget and raise a family, we now see the perception of marriage as a variety of arrangements where childraising is completely optional. It's just a social/legal arrangement, easily dissolved. The Catholic understanding of the family as mirroring the Triniy in its self-giving fruitfulness is completely lost, as one can have sex at will without having to deal with the logical consequences (you can always abort if your contraception fails to make you completely sterile). Sterility, far from being seen as a terrible burden for a couple, is seen as a good (at least in some quarters). At any rate, it is an option for couples now.

    Since having children is no longer seen as one of the goods of marriage, children are sometimes seen as a burden and a "punishment" (as per Obama). Since we can render sex sterile, we can make marriage any kind of arrangment possible without any regard for that messy child-raising stuff. Why not homosexual unions, then? By the way, there is no argument for homosexual unions that can't be made for polygamy.

    If you can't see the connection between contraception and the acceptance of homosexual unions, there's not much I can say to convince you -- and frankly, others have made the case better than I ever could. But it does seem obvious to me.

    You wrote earlier: "Christian teaching is much more clear on the primacy of love. Matters of that nature are best left between two individuals, the Hebrew purity code notwithstanding."

    I don't see the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an example of the "Hebrew purity code", but as Magisterial teaching that I give my assent to, including its assessment of homosexual acts as disordered. Therefore, to encourage unions which feature these acts would be doing those individuals a grave disservice. The primacy of love requires that I get my own butt, and help get my brother's butt, into heaven. I'm going to fail that if I encourage sinful behavior, no matter what kind and no matter how politicaly correct and fashionable it might be to do so.

  30. Regarding your last point, as far as civil law is concerned, it actually isn't our responsibility to get anyone's "butt to heaven."

    As far as marriage goes, even your proferred thesis as to the form and function of marriage has changed over time; it has not always been so.

    Again, I'd like to see those proofs. If it's as obvious as people are led to believe, where's the evidence?

    Goodness, I feel like Missouri.

  31. Austringer1:52 PM


    I wasn't suggesting that concern for our brother's welfare and soul was a "civil law" -- it is our Christian responsibility. Thus, I cannot, as a Christian, support and encourage actions that endanger people's eternal souls. I am my brother's keeper...

    "My" proferred thesis?? Are you familiar with Catholic teaching on marriage?

    Yes, marriage has changed over time. But Christianity has put forth a model which mirrors the Trinity, and has served as the building block of Western Civilization for 2000 years. And, regardless of marriages history, I accept that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. Therefore, I assent to her teachings as I would to Christ.

    You use the word "proofs: as if this is some factoid that can be scientifically measured and weighed. This is a question of using one's reason, and I think the reasoning that I have re-iterated (I am neither the first or only person who observes this connection) is sound. You may not be convinced, but I suspect it's not because of a lack in the reasoning.

  32. How does this apply to civil union, which is what I believe the discussion's origin?

  33. Austringer2:16 PM


    It doesn't. But, in response to my saying that pressure for same-sex marriage was the fruit of the contraceptive culture, you asked me to back up that assertion. I gave you my reasons for thinking that (Terry's quote on the original post makes the connection between contraception and the pressure to accept homosexual marriages, so as I said I'm not the first or only person to do so).

    As for civil unions, I will repeat what I said earlier: I have not examined the arguments about this issue very closely, either pro or con. However, I did give you my reaction at this time, which is that I can see that civil unions might be used as an incremental approach to a final goal of same-sex "marriage", which I as a Catholic oppose; and also that, as my Christian duty to love my neighbor includes not supporting or encouraging serious sin, it appears to me that supporting civil unions would do that.

  34. It seems we're at an impasse, but thanks for the discussion.

  35. Good job, Aus. Thom, Church teaching on marriage has not changed and that would be Kansas. Civil unions are something else altogether and not to be encouraged either. I think Aus has connected the dots, follow them.

  36. Not actually, Seeker, but as I saisd, I believe we're at an impasse.

  37. It was fun and important while it lasted anyway. I enjoyed watching you two tangle horns. Good job to you too. Don't stop searching the way is in front of you.

  38. Austringer2:28 PM

    Thanks for the discussion, Thom. May God bless you today and always.

  39. Thom, just to redirect this again to the whole matter of Power of Attorney or the one who is delegated to make medical decisions, maybe people don't carry that around, but why is it not relevant to this discussion?
    Single people who do not delegate "next of kin" have to deal with this.
    I was in the hospital recently; I also had some tests that were somewhat risky...I was questioned about having a "living will" or "delegated power of attorney" and the one to call in an emergency...not my blood relative; my religious superior (but the hospital didn't know that) problem, no question. Is that just because I live in WI (one of the most liberal states in the USA??)
    Why do same sex couples (who are not legally married) have to have the same rights as a married couple (or those in a civil union)?
    I believe the law is the law here;
    if the partners of same sex couples are prevented from visiting or making health care decisions, isn't that because they did not make provision for that?
    Just like any other person who is not married?
    Where is the discrimination?
    Any health care decisions that deal with end of life issues will not be made by blood relatives for me; that is my religious superior's decision.
    As for insurance; that's whole 'nother matter...
    Catholic teaching makes it clear that the rights of married people and the members of their families should be treated differently than other forms of "partnership".
    That has to do with the teaching on married life and the family; it does not mean that others are discriminated against.
    But I guess that is up for debate.

  40. It's discrimination because it isn't just two random people, or two people in a professional or spiritual relationship. Try to put yourself, swallowing your gall if necessary, to see what it might be like.

  41. *try to put yourself in another's shoes, that is


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.