US Catholic News Service Editor Cites Acceptance of Contraception as Leading to Current Gay Unions Situation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

BOSTON, May. 17 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Phil Lawler, editor of the Boston based Catholic World News and author of five books and numerous articles, has responded to today's beginning of legally sanctioned homosexual unions in Massachusetts. In his Phil's Forum for today, Lawler lays out the case that Christians themselves are to a large degree responsible for this logical outcome of the acceptance of contraception.

Lawler writes, "The degradation of marriage did not begin with a Massachusetts court decision late last year. It began a few decades ago, when 'ordinary' married couples. began routinely using contraceptives. At that point, the typical American marriage-- which might have looked, from the outside, very much like that beautiful old union-- was itself based on acts of sexual perversion."

Sigmund Freud, Lawler explains, said that, "it is a characteristic common to all perversions that in them reproduction is put aside as an aim. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse-- if it departs from reproduction as its aim and pursues the attainment of gratification independently."

Phil's Forum notes that up to the early 20th century, "the practice of contraception was almost universally regarded as an aberration". Mahatma Gandhi, says Lawler, "told his followers: 'There is hope for a decent life only so long as the sexual act is definitely related to the conception of precious life.'"

The Church of England burst the dam in 1930 when it became the first major Christian denomination to accept the use of contraceptives. Lawler reveals that a Washington Post editorial at the time warned the 1930 decision "would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality."

Since that time, The Catholic World News head observes, "We have seen a meteoric rise in abuse, divorce, depression, and dysfunction. Countless thousands of individual marriages have dissolved; now finally the institution of marriage has begun to totter."

Lawler argues that because of the norm of contracepted sex Massachusetts citizens and others are "having a difficult time coming up with a persuasive argument why same-sex couples should not be entitled to their own preferred form of sterile sexual expression."

His suggestion for the long term solution to reversing gay 'marriage' legalization is to "Go through your medicine cabinets, dressers, and bedside-table drawers. Gather all the contraceptives. Throw them in the trash, where they belong. If you're Catholic, go to Confession. Then, having put our own houses and homes in order, we can begin the long trek toward restoring the true meaning of marriage."

http://www.cwnews.com


 



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 18, 2004.

Think about it GT. When the Anglicans became the first religious body in the world to permit contraception in 1930(at first under restrictive criteria), even atheists were shocked. The minority of Anglican bishops who argued against it warned that making sexual intercourse permissible for "love" alone, even if deliberately preventing reproduction, would lead people to ask what is so terribly wrong with homosexual activities which do the same thing. (Remember at that time contraceptives were illegal in many countries and homosexual activity was a crime punishable by years in prison.) These dissenting bishops too were fobbed off with "That's a bit of a stretch."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), May 28, 2004.

If the sole purpose of marriage was to reproduce, then I might be more accepting of this argument, but it's not. A sterile married couple can't produce children, but still have a perfectly valid marriage. So marriage must hold meaning beyond making children. It's representative of Christ's relationship to the Church - the Bride and Groom - the intimacy of the marriage union - of two becoming One.

I understand that Catholic belief condemns contraception, which is a discussion unto itself, but to say that allowing use of contraception leads to homosexual marriages is just going to far in my opinion. That's like saying that allowing people to eat leads to gluttony or allowing people to drink wine leads to drunkenness or allowing people to take vacation leads to sloth.

Most sins are a matter of subtle, but important, distinctions. Where one draws the line between acceptable behavior and sin is often debated, as in the topic of contraception versus NFP. But I think that trying to estblish a causal connection between contraception and all of the modern ailments of marriage is unfounded.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), May 28, 2004.


Phil Lawler is completely correct, and by no means is he the first person to have had this insight. I'm sure that he would admit as much.

I understand that Catholic belief condemns contraception,

This is not a helpful way of stating a fact. Instead, it is helpful to say truthfully, "I understand that God condemns contraception, and he communicates that truth through his Catholic Church."

to say that allowing use of contraception leads to homosexual marriages is just going too far in my opinion.

This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. People who say that "this is going too far" or "that's a bit of a stretch" are people who want to commit sins of contraception without feeling guilty about how their acts have contributed to the fostering of a perverse, "gay-tolerating" society. However, the consciences of these would-be self-justifiers are bothering them, and that is a good thing.

Every human act that suppresses or thwarts either the unitive dimension or the procreative dimension of marital intercourse leads society closer toward perversion, as even a Jewish atheist like Dr. Freud and a secular, non-Catholic body like the Washington Post editorial board could see, in a day when man's moral vision was not so obscured as today.

Contraception, which is contrary to God's will, thwarts one or both dimensions of the marriage act (unitive, procreative). Now that this has been happening on a grand scale, with societal approval, for several decades, there has been an ever-growing "disconnect" between (a) sexual activity and (b) the begetting of children. Partly because of this disconnect, people have become more and more accepting of "alternative" forms of sexual activity that can never be procreative -- such as sodomy and decriminalized sodomite unions.

If non-Catholic society had not become lax, had never lost its virtue, and had continued to reject contraceptives beyond 1930, the rates of homosexual activity, rape, sexual abuse, incest, sterilization, abortion, and even divorce would today be microscopically low, compared to the disgustingly high numbers that exist for all of these things today.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), May 28, 2004.



Contraception and homosexuality have been around for ages. The fact that contraception is more reliable today (even including NFP) may contribute to more irregular male/female relationships, but to link it with rape, for example, is wrong.

Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with contraception. On the other hand, they are part of the growing numbers of people seeking extreme fertility treatments (sperm banks, in vitro, etc.), which is supposed to not be good either, but supposedly it is not as wrong as contraception?

Finally, imho, I don't know if this is an issue only in the US, but if health insurance were NOT tied to employment and dependency relationships, maybe there wouldn't have been this push towards gay marriage.... Most of the discussions, even by gays, is all about the benefits issue, not "committed relationship" stuff.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 28, 2004.


Henry,

Your whole statement is correct but your last two paragraphs are especially right on the money. I would also add that Catholic society has become lax as well regarding all the ills you mention since the 60's and 70's. I understand where GT and Dave are coming from thinking the whole thing is a stretch. But how else can you explain the shocking decline in marriage and the shocking increase in perversity?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 28, 2004.


GT,

We were posting at the same time I guess. You say:

Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with contraception

Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation, so yes I think they do have to do with contraception. The whole idea, like Henry says, is to separate the sexual act from being open to procreation. The more you do this, by contraception, the more you begin to tolerate sexual deviance and perversion (masturbation, homosexuality, prostitution etc.)

Most of the discussions, even by gays, is all about the benefits issue, not "committed relationship" stuff.

I disagree with this. There is some truth to saying that homosexual partners wish to receive medical benefits as heterosexual couples do, but this is ancillary to the marriage argument, a side benefit if you will. This is also a red herring to make their cause a "civil rights" issue.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 28, 2004.


What I'm saying is that homosexuality, by its nature, has nothing to do with contraception, because you don't need to use it. That is why I think it is a stretch to link contraception to homosexual marriage issues.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but I do think that many people who can't get for example health insurance will take advantage of it now. In other words, married roomates (who perhaps live entirely separate lives except for that piece of paper). Good grief, you already have straight marriages that are marriages in name only, people who stay together for the money or because of the kids, or gasp, what the in-laws will think. Isn't that wrong?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 28, 2004.


Contraception and homosexuality have been around for ages.

Meaning no disrespect, but there was no reason to mention this, since no one argued to the contrary. No one said that the use of contraception caused homosexual behavior.

The fact that contraception is more reliable today (even including NFP) may contribute to more irregular male/female relationships, but to link it with rape, for example, is wrong.

I thought that only very poorly educated non-Catholics don't know that NFP is not a form of "contraception." Contraception, a "gift" of the devil, actively prevents pregancy. The prefix "contra" means "(working) against." NFP does not work against or prevent pregnancy, and it is God's gift of built-in birth regulation.

Link contraception with rape seems wrong only to a person who has not yet given deep thought to these matters, putting two and two together to make four. There is far more rape now than prior to 1930, partly because of the cheapening of the marital act into a mere act of physical pleasure ("thanks" to contraception's disconnecting the procreative aspect). Oh, we know that rape is not so often a sexual crime as one of violence and domination. Nevertheless, it was perpetrated very rarely before 1930, when even violent, dominating men still knew about the sacredness of the bond between love (unitive) and life (procreation) in intercourse.

Homosexual relationships have nothing to do with contraception.
What I'm saying is that homosexuality, by its nature, has nothing to do with contraception, because you don't need to use it. That is why I think it is a stretch to link contraception to homosexual marriage issues.

There is no point in denying things that no one has claimed. No one said that contraception causes homosexuality. No one said that sodomites use contraception. You are missing the point that was made, so I will repeat it:
The greater and greater acceptance of intentionally sterile sex -- first among heterosexuals (by artifice), now among homosexuals (by impossibility) -- is an outgrowth of the acceptance of contraception. That is the point. There one can see the linkage.

On the other hand, they are part of the growing numbers of people seeking extreme fertility treatments (sperm banks, in vitro, etc.), which is supposed to not be good either, but supposedly it is not as wrong as contraception?

All these things are gravely wrong, the matter of mortal sins. It is of little or no value to try to assign "negative grades" to these sins, ranking them against each other. All must be avoided. If forced to rank them in gravity, though, one could argue that contraception is less grave than the others, because the others involve multiple sins (masturbation, artificial insemination, etc.) and often result in murder (discarded embryonic babies).

Most of the discussions, even by gays, is all about the benefits issue, not "committed relationship" stuff.

There would be no point in their referring to "committed relationships," since research clearly shows that such things are practically non-existent among "gays." Most of them have multiple (even hundreds of) partners yearly. If "gay marriage" is "legalized" nationwide, it will be just another way for lawyers to reap fantastic profits, since there will be a whole new connotation to the old movie title, "The Gay Divorcee."

Good grief, you already have straight marriages that are marriages in name only, people who stay together for the money or because of the kids, or gasp, what the in-laws will think. Isn't that wrong?

It is a reason for sadness, but it is not "wrong," if they are validly married.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), May 28, 2004.



"Link contraception with rape seems wrong only to a person who has not yet given deep thought to these matters, putting two and two together to make four. There is far more rape now than prior to 1930, partly because of the cheapening of the marital act into a mere act of physical pleasure ("thanks" to contraception's disconnecting the procreative aspect). Oh, we know that rape is not so often a sexual crime as one of violence and domination. Nevertheless, it was perpetrated very rarely before 1930, when even violent, dominating men still knew about the sacredness of the bond between love (unitive) and life (procreation) in intercourse."

Oh please. Did it ever occur to you that people in those days didn't report those crimes due to shame, same as out-of-wedlock pregancies? Good grief.

"I thought that only very poorly educated non-Catholics don't know that NFP is not a form of "contraception." Contraception, a "gift" of the devil, actively prevents pregancy. The prefix "contra" means "(working) against." NFP does not work against or prevent pregnancy, and it is God's gift of built-in birth regulation."

NFP does the same thing, and you have to actively participate in it, just like other forms of contraception. No one does NFP to have children, it is to avoid having children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 28, 2004.


Did it ever occur to you that people in those days didn't report rapes due to shame, same as out-of-wedlock pregancies?

After you have done some criminological research that takes this factor (shame) into account, you will come to know that the rate of rape has gone 'way up since 1930 (first acceptance of contraception by a Christian sect), especially since 1960 (advent of "the pill").

NFP does the same thing, and you have to actively participate in it, just like other forms of contraception. No one does NFP to have children, it is to avoid having children. Great Caesar's Ghost! How wrong can one person be? Both of those sentences are totally incorrect!

On the first point: NFP works through passive observation of the signs of infertility, given by God. Contraceptors do their sinful work through active thwarting of God's natural processes, attempting to suppress ovulation, etc.. Contraceptors make a man's or a woman's body behave abnormally, in order to tell God to stay the hell out of their lives.

On the second point: It is clear that you have never read anything solid about NFP, or you have forgotten what you read. Many thousands of previously infertile couples have used NFP to help them achieve pregnancy! It gives them knowledge of the days of greatest fertility.

It is extremely difficult to have a dialogue with a person who is deeply mired in ignorance of the facts, is strongly attached to sinful habits (e.g., contracepting), or is so stubbornly prideful as to be unable to admit her errors. If the person suffers from all three of these traits, the task becomes pretty much impossible. One can only pray for such a person and hope that she hears or reads, and then humbly accepts, the facts, when they are related to her by someone whom she fully trusts.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), May 29, 2004.


GT said "you already have straight marriages that are marriages in name only, people who stay together for the money or because of the kids, or gasp, what the in-laws will think. Isn't that wrong?"

Logically, GT, you would argue that married people who no longer love each other have a DUTY to divorce, because their current situation is "wrong". Why does it make you "gasp" that people worry what their in-laws will think? "What will people think?" is very often the main factor preventing people from sinning. As the Chinese proverb says, "If you don't want anyone to know it, don't do it."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 01, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ