Post 9: Promotion of Chastity

Paragraph 22: Promotion of Chastity.

In this paragraph, Pope mentioned that all of the pornography kind of stuff that stimulates men's baser passion or encourage low moral standard should be abolished to promote chastity. He also mentioned that "It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities." How perfect does he want our world to be?

First of all, I believe that what Pope is stating about chastity is pretty ideal for our human world. If every person in this world follows what Pope is saying about this, there would be much less sexual crime. Less access to porn could make our lives healthier. That's what he thinks. Sounds very ideal and perfect. I would half agree to his opinion, but not 100% because I believe first parts of our lives should be chaste; our childhood should be chaste. What I mean here is, for me, teachers and parents can try their best not to let us touch any sexual related things when we are very young (like 10 years old because we don't need it), but not necessarily after getting into junior high or something because I think sexual education is necessary for all of the people. I don't know if an official sexual education (those taught in a text book) would be counted as "obscenity", but without this, we would not be able to correctly understand sexual things. Instead, once we are interested in it, we will find our own ways to learn and understand it, and of course, it might not be always right. For example, let me try to explain this in a scientific way, if there is a certain thing that you are not sure, say a math problem, and there is no textbook nor teacher, what would you do? All what you can do is to form hypothesis and experiment it. And only after trying a couple of experimentation, you will get close to the right answer. I believe this also applies to sexual education. It is better to teach everyone about sex rather than to let them learn by themselves. For safety, sexual education is necessary anyway.

Moreover, I strongly believe that sexual crime cannot be prevented to happen by doing what Pope said. I think it is pretty easy to guess what happens if every porn suddenly disappeared. Some people will go crazy and there will be more sexual crime because if there isn't a porn or something, people will try to make it themselves (Docile body could be seen here as people who wants to fulfill their wants). It is really a tough thing to control every person's mind in this whole world. No matter how perfect one's idea sounds (in this case, Pope's idea), there are always people who go against it. It could be said that unless we have one consistent intelligible body that everybody pursues, there will be contradiction. Pope wants the world to be chaste, but some people don't (I'm the one too.)

To conclude, I believe that Pope's idea about promotion of chastity is unrealistic and certain level of sexual education IS necessary in today's world. Abolishing all the obscenity and indecency will solve nothing.

Post 8: Abortion

50 million. Do you know what this number means? This number indicates the estimated total abortion took place in U.S. from 1973 through 2008. Average number of abortion took place per year is over 1 million. only in U.S. Why so many? Why abortion? Well, first of all, what is abortion? Abortion is an act of terminating pregnancy; this means to give up a child's life before giving birth.

So, why people choose to do abortion? First of all what makes people choose to abort? What information or news? I believe that the answer to this question would be the improvement in our technology. Technology improves our lives but not always in a good way. For example, there is a technology called prenatal screening which could show a child’s health status before his/her birth. With prenatal screening, people are now able to see if their child has any disabilities, genetic disease or diseases that are inherited from the parents. Isn’t it very easy to see what will happen if the child has any bad disease? Yes, usually people just take abortion. Abortion also takes place when a child’s sex is not the one his/her parents want, when parents simply don’t want a child, and so on. Lots of people do it and consequently the number of abortion is increasing rapidly these days.

Abortion is a controversial issue I believe. Some people, especially those who have experienced ending a pregnancy, would say it is a right decision to abort if their children would be born with unwanted disorders even though they were previously against abortion. But, on the other hand, other people would blame on them for aborting because they believe that terminating a pregnancy is a really bad idea for the unborn babies. People who faced abortion previously believe in their choice because they think that it will be too hard for the babies to live their lives with disabilities, and will cost lots of money to support their lives. But, other people don’t think in that way; they just say that those parents have no sense of responsibility because they gave up their new children. They claim that terminating pregnancy directly means taking away lives from babies. Because of this difference in opinions, parents who have chosen to abort their children sometimes keep it a secret to other people in order not to be criticized. Also, considering the feeling of a baby who was supposed to be born if his/her parents did not find out he has some problems, abortion is a really harsh thing.

This is a big issue. Although all of the people know that abortion is against natural law and is bad for their babies, there are some circumstances where parents don’t want babies. The solution that would solve this problem, for me, is to terminate all the prenatal screening and other related technology. If there isn’t technology like this, people won’t have to choose to abort babies. Because I believe that facing this decision is as hard as facing a child born with undesired properties, so we don’t need to know in advance if our babies have any problems. I know this might be an extreme answer with no sense, but this is my opinion.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

In this section the Pope gives his opinion on birth control methods, deeming them unlawful, and deliberitaly going against the principles of the human and Christian doctrine. Anything from Birth control, condoms, vasectomy, abortion; any means of altering the end result of sexual intercouse are stictly off limits.

I can understand where the Pope is coming from in the sense of abortion, and apparently so too do the people of Mississippi through their proposal of a Personhood Amendment. As stated in the amendment, "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization." I'm not scientist, but its easy to understand that their is a clear belief that upon the moment of fertilization, the egg is a living being. However, I dont agree with the Pope setting an 'absolute wrong' on abortion, for i believe there are some exceptions for a woman to be able to have an abortion, specifically a rape victim. Is it fair for the victim, forced unwillingly into sexual intercouse, to have to have a baby? I think not.

As far as the Popes stance on condom use, all i can say is, "really?" This old fella must be living in the past because if anything condom use is on the up and coming. Sexual intercourse in adult relationships is accepted as a norm in today's society, and condom use for protection not only against pregnancy but also against some STDs is also accepted.

Where I can understand and agree with part of the statement by Pope and the people on Mississippi, I disagree with the belief in an 'absolute wrong,' and that the actions of birth control and circumstantial.

"Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness." (9)

In this passage, the Pope stresses the importance of fidelity within the role of marriage. It states the obvious in expressing that marriage will see it's difficulties and that no marriage is perfect, however, those marriages which represent true love will be able to fight through and endure those difficult moments. This passage also seems to imply that there are particular rules to marriage which are made clear at the moment of joining and must be followed. Fidelity and procreation are two of the most important messages stressed in this passage.

I agree with the Pope in terms of marriages, and relationships in general, facing rough patches. Any relationship, romantic or not, will suffer at some point because humans are not perfect. In terms of fidelity and marriage, I also agree that when you commit yourself to marriage and to another human whom you love and care for, that you shall remain faithful to that human. In regards to making procreation a necessity of marriage, I disagree. I believe that having a child is something that should be left to choice by the couple involved and that it should not be frowned upon to choose against having children. Having children should be viewed as a gift, and if forced to do so, may be viewed in a negative light or as interfering. Lifestyle is an option that offers many potential opportunities to choose from, and having children should not be looked at as interfering with other life goals.

Regarding the topic of fidelity again, I feel that this is stressed in western cultures more than in others. It is difficult for me to comprehend cultures that allow anything outside of monogamy. Not to say that one way is right, but the subject of fidelity is so highly stressed in western culture that anything outside of that is so foreign that it seems as though it is wrong. The topics covered in the Pope's document exclude any allowance for cultural variation, making it easy to 'sin' if you culturally identify outside of accordance with the Christian faith.

The Promotion of Chastity

22. The promotion of Chastity
This passage dealt with the idea of chastity and condemning indecency in order to safeguard moral law. I didn’t like the way this article passage was phrased at all there were two parts that particularly bothered me. I understand that there should be a certain degree of censorship the public and fully agree with that; but condemning all forms of indecency from the stage and screen seems unrealistic. I think that people will always feel desire no matter what it is channeled through, some forms just be more easily accessed then others. As a Christian I feel that in order to show faith one has to overcome challenges such as not exposing oneself to indecent images not banking others to make them impossible to see. It isn’t hard to avoid many forms of indecency and it isn’t a battle that I personally feel is worthwhile for the Catholic Church to fight since indecency can come in so many forms it would almost call for a complete cultural rethink in order to remove all indecency from the screen and stage. The second issue I had with this article is how this passage addressed the issue “Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards,” the issue of indecency is by no means just an issue men deal with. Male modeling is currently at its peak in popularity; nearly nude men can be found on the cover of many common magazines which leads me to feel that this issue is one for both males and females.
In relation to current events the Catholic Church in Kumasi has slapped a ban on indecent dressing. Church goers who break the dress code will not be allowed to worship at the church. It isn’t just an in church dress code; rather it is in effect over the duration of the weekends. I feel that this ban is nonsense, how will they determine what is considered indecent? I think Susan Bordo would agree; both men and women should be able to portray themselves as they want to be seen. If someone wants to be seen as indecent I feel they should be allowed, and a church that is dedicated to saving people shouldn’t turn anyone away. The idea of turning someone away because they didn’t dress to another’s standards seems very unpractical to me when the church is trying to grow, convert more to believers, and bring in more revenue. It seems very counter intuitive on many levels.
One of the main things I have pulled out of this class is the wide variety of individuals, views, and circumstances which create these views. I feel that by the Catholic Church placing a dress code on its members it is creating a less diverse group of people. I think that diversity is very important, in our class there are many different points of view and I feel that these create much deeper and more interesting conversations. I feel that it would be in the Pope’s best interest to remove restrictions like this in order to gather a more diverse and culturally realistic group.

Being Catholic Means Poppin' Out Babies

Responsible Parenthood

10.

"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."

This is what the pope says about responsible parenthood with regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions. What this suggests is that the prudent parents will generously decide to have more children or stop having sex for fun and using contraceptives. This notion seems ridiculous to me or at least ridiculously outdated. Being an Irish Catholic I have been told all my life "Go out and find a nice Irish girl with child bearing hips, marry her and have lots of babies." Back when this was regular practice (which I am assuming was up until the industrial revolution) there was good reason to have a ton of children. The reason people had children back then was to increase the amount of free labor they had. having eight kids to work the field sounds a lot better than one boy and one girl, which is America's TV family nowadays. Into the industrial revolution the more kids you had the more pay checks you could have streaming in, until child labor laws rolled around.

My position on the issue is that having tons of children because you can is an outdated practice. That said I should add that I would love to have a large family with 4+ children of my own. Like I stated previously, historically it made tons of sense to have children and pass down you ideals, while getting a free hand on the farm. Today there are positives and negatives with having a big family. Some negatives are financial strain, sharing attention and overall stress. Financially, children are one of the biggest investments someone can make, between school, clothes, sports and more there is simply a lot of money going into kids. Sharing attention between many children can be difficult because even in small families older kids get jealous of babies so if you have three babies to worry about you are gonna leave the 10 year old to fend for himself making him feel less important. My final point is that overall, most parents cannot handle a lot of kids. Nowadays both parents are working most the time and each kid is playing a sport and an instrument. Juggling a job and four kids in activities would be a nightmare on someone's schedule. Some positives of having a lot of kids in my opinion is that they can entertain each other, it teaches them to share and work out issues by themselves.

Ever since the invention of the TV I believe that family sizes has gone down substantially. After seeing the stereotypical family of a husband, wife, son and daughter I think the big family has gone down. This could also be related to the 50's ideal of "normalization" and "suburban America." In a worldwide aspect I think that family sizes should go down simply because people are not dying as fast as they used to putting a terrible strain on the planet. Why one boy and one girl is the ideal family puzzles me, but I do remember my dad saying that as a parent you want a daughter just to realize how easy sons are to handle.

Naturally Planning your Family

In paragraph 16 of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI states:

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love”

The Pope is explaining that married couples are able to naturally prevent pregnancy, and that it is acceptable in the eyes of God (it is just utilizing a method created by nature). By abstaining from sexual intercourse when the woman is fertile, a couple is able to naturally prevent the creation of a child. This is a way to plan your family accordingly and to have the number of children that you are able to properly care for.


I think this is a very necessary paragraph in the Humanae Vitae, because the Pope finally admits that it is acceptable for a couple to prevent pregnancy. While reading the Humanae Viate, I couldn’t help but immediately think about overpopulation of the earth and also an average couple trying to financially and emotionally provide for 10 plus children. Before this paragraph, it seemed if you did not want to have as many children as nature allowed that you were a bad person, and were intentionally going against the will of God. The argument made in paragraph 16 validates (for those who follow the Pope at least) the feelings of only wanting to have a few children.

The argument to only have intercourse while the woman is infertile as the only form of birth control does have benefits and consequences. In the general sense, I don’t like to alter my body with any chemical unless necessary. I’d much rather just take a quick nap to cure a headache than to take Tylenol, and I don’t enjoy nor feel that I need the effect of caffeine in pop or coffee. In that light, I can agree with idea of not changing the hormonal balance of your body. Also, individuals can have different reactions to chemicals, and I’m not sure if we completely understand all of the side effects and consequences of taking birth control pills. It makes sense that the less you chemically alter your body, the better. There are also arguments of how birth control can affect your ability to have children in the future.

Where danger lies in this argument though, is that not all women have a consistent and predictable menstruation cycle. This leaves virtually no option for those women to manage the number of children she has. With modern technology and the knowledge that we have of reproductive systems, it seems that one should take advantage of it to plan their family size accordingly. Even with some modern birth control, pregnancy is still possible, so in some sense you are not completely preventing pregnancy, you are just reducing the odds of it happening significantly. I’m not a doctor, but it seems the natural family planning would be very difficult, and also impractical for most. It leaves a small window of time during each month in which a couple could have sex without conceiving a child. Having to clearly plan out when they are able to have sex could affect the relationship. Intercourse couldn’t be as spontaneous and ironically “natural”.

The Pope admits he's WRONG?

It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

- Pope Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae"

I would like to stress the importance of the above passage to the political, social, and philosophical ramifications of Pope Paul VI doctrine "Humanae Vitae," and relate it in some fashion to the difference between jurisprudence and judicial activism. I'll also make known my opinion on the role of children within a marriage, contending the view of the Pope. Paul VI uses this passage in his dissertation to best situate "Humanae Vitae" within a modern context. In doing this, he virtually admits that by sheer mass, volume, and momentum, the Church is wrong and a "sign of contradiction" to the modern reality (constructed consciousness) for morally prohibiting the use of artificial contraception in married or unmarried heterosexual relationships. But this passage also serves to frame the Church's argument against artificial contraception as necessary, historical, dutiful, lawful, and natural. Paul VI believes that the Church has a responsibility to promote the "entire moral law," despite its societal contradiction. Thus, he admits that while the Church will probably be WRONG in cultural context, it will continue to be internally RIGHT. In a subtle, yet rebellious way Paul VI reinforces the identity of the Church as the source for truth, while admitting its failure to persuade society or 'manufacture consent.' The Pope wields a dangerous, although I do believe well meant, tool that has contributed to virulent debates on artificial contraception since its writing.

The Church fundamentally believes that there are two pieces to a heterosexual marriage, of which society ought to be based on. Unification and procreation should lead to the betterment and happiness of the married couple and society. Neither member should attempt to violate the the wishes of the other, and the couple should not violate the desire of God when it comes to children. Paul writes that the natural ovarian cycles are the prescribed contraception by God, and that only this method is allowable and still adheres to the vocation of a married couple. In law, jurisprudence refers to a body of law or a consistency of law that contributes to known and just rulings. Judicial activism describes ideologies that compete with consistency of law and seek to establish new precedents for deciding matters. Paul VI appeals to both the consistent and prudent ideals of the Church regarding life and marriage and to the activist role it will play in denying the masses that would see artificial contraception advance.

This conservatively active role of the Church in reacting to artificial contraception has and has had significant political and social consequences. I personally wholeheartedly disagree with the Pope as to the primary vocation of a married couple, and to the necessity of marriage as a fundamental unit of society. Defining marriage and procreation synonymously classes bodies, and not for the better. Women and men are then breeders, meant in their most refined state, to only desire the production of progeny. Society is herein limited in creativity, and in accessibility to those who "naturally" are less fit for parenthood. I believe a wide variety of more singly minded vocations such as artistry, management, research, international service, etc. for which a conjugal family may or may not be best are integral elements to a happy and healthy society, and even a spiritual people. Artificial contraception would allow married couples to enhance the unifying aspects of their relationship, while mitigating their need for what I feel has become an outdated necessity of children. This being said, children are wonderful for those who love them. The papal constructed worldview on family and marriage derives from a long precedent of Church doctrine, and Paul VI admits as much. He also admits that the Church, and himself personally, will advocate this position as a policy, suggesting later in the document methods for promoting anti-contraception in schools and science. It is evident here that the relationship between the Pope and society is constitutive, the Pope is changed by society and vice versa. The Pope actively intervenes in culture, just as he proclaims the natural truth of Church law. Interesting.