If you read any blogs aside from this one, you will have surely read about the "Condom Comments" made by the Pope in his new book, which is based on an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald. The book, is entitled Light of the World. I am not here to discuss that matter ad naseum, instead I wish to discuss what he didn't say, and the reasons that are behind the media's all out attack on such an inane and nuanced comment. [If you don't know the issue I am talking about please see: Thomas Peter's take over at American Papist]···•°···
Today is the first Sunday of Advent. It is the beginning of a new Liturgical year, it is in essence the beginning of our Faith, and it is the beginning of a new journey down the road of faith that we all take. This beginning, this new thing to come is Christ Jesus. He was born of a Virgin, who said: 'Yes.' It was with Mary's fiat that mankind was given the Christ-child, it was done through her total obedience to God's will. It was an acceptance of something greater than herself, even in light of the fear that was surely in her mind and the emotional turmoil that she certainly forsaw in her future. We hear this message time and time again, and yet it is often presented as some untouchable lofty 'goal' that we can never achieve, but should always strive for. It makes no sense... but, this message fits perfectly with the news that has been written about our Faith recently. This Sunday is the perfect opportunity to not only clarify the message, but to propel it forward in a life-affirming, and God affirming way. ···°•···
 |
| "False Advertising" |
Let me be very straightforward about this: the 'Condom issue' stems from the mindset that exists in the secular world, that the Pope and the Church are simply holding on by their fingertips to a principled position that is archaic. One that not only isn't followed by most Catholics, but one that in reality is bad and harmful to society, e.g. the 'AIDS problem in Africa,' 'over-population,' 'rising health-care costs,' the cost of living, the need for smaller family size, etc... This mentality, and these 'problems' are the result of a secular focused life. It is hard to argue that "God instructs us to believe "X" to someone that denies the initial premise that God exists. Therefore we often find ourselves at a loss. Most people will then descend into speaking in secular/liberal idioms, trying to prove their point in the language of those to whom they are speaking; this doesn't work, but I digress. The real problem is that as Catholics, many of us don't believe in the teachings of the Church regarding contraception.
···•°···
You think abortion is a tough or close issue for Catholics, try and talk about contraception. It is the fastest way to be labeled extreme, uber-Catholic, or just plain crazy. Try and discuss the Pro-Life "issue" with another Catholic with your premise being that to be fully or authentically Pro-Life, that means being open to life AT ALL TIMES. That means, not preventing life by any means. Seriously, talk about scarlet letters, you will get a big 'F' attached to you for freak in no time flat. Those that don't outcast you that way will in the very least try and explain away their view, or rationalize with you why they have done whatever it is they do. It is an awkward conversation, because it often means "entering the marital bedroom" but not because anyone but the explainer chooses to do so.
Now before folks jump up and scream, "Well isn't this a 'holier than thou' stance?" I want to explain that I understand the Church's teaching on family, prayer, and Natural Family Planning. I know that not every family can have 12 kids and live a 'normal life.' That being said, I also am sympathetic to those that do have large families and argue that it is easy as long as you are willing to put aside the desire and 'necessity' for certain things in life. Now I am not trying to play both sides of the fence, I just think that within the teachings of our Faith, there is room for both views, and I do understand that some families have to be more intentional about the number of children they have. ···°•···
All that being said, there is a big difference between not having the patience/desire to raise a large family and lacking the actual ability to do so. The point is that, often people equivocate the lack of the ability to do things with the desire to do so. So what we end up with in our parishes is people who find ways to ignore, conveniently, the teachings of the Faith on contraception. They then explain it away via this equivocation and therefore it comes of, or is at least presented as being inline with Church teaching. What exacerbates this situation is the silence that echoes from the Sanctuary, and sometimes there is even agreement that comes from the clergy. And this gets me to the point of this post; we are in dire need of homilies that not only affirm Pro-Life teaching, but that affirm authentic Pro-Life teachings that discuss the evils of contraception. Anything less than that is disingenuous.
···•°···
The Catholic Faith is not a cafeteria meal. We do not get to walk through life, picking and choosing various precepts, traditions, and teachings as if we are choosing the parts to our meal. Instead, it is like a bridge where every piece is necessary, and if we choose not to "use all the pieces" the whole thing will come tumbling down. The contraception, trap as I like to call it, is one of those "pieces" that so many Catholics are willing to leave out. What they don't realize is that it is a vital piece, as are all the parts, that integrates into so many other areas. It is impossible to compartmentalize it. Therefore, it ends up affecting more than just our belief to that specific area. So what starts as the use of contraception, makes us have less children, which makes us focus more on the money and things we buy those children. It also makes us fail to believe in other 'small' things, just because we have come to think that maybe not everything that is a teaching of the Church is necessary or even correct. All of a sudden we have 25 things we don't believe and our bridge is rather weak, if not tumbling into the river completely.
 |
| Contraception: Subtraction, not addition |
···°•···
So why not contraception? Because it alters the idea of love and it says 'No' to God. Certainly there are lots of reasons not to have 12 kids, I get that. But there are plenty of other ways to plan family size aside from contraception, and by contraception I mean any preventative methods[*fn. 1]. Contraception though, is a means to an end, and as we good Catholics should know -- that type of moral reasoning is never a good thing. Contraception destroys what love, and consequently sex, is! What I mean is that it changes the purpose of the intimate marital act. It degrades it, devolves it, and minimizes it. You may have heard that there are only a few "animals" that have sex solely for pleasure. It doesn't matter what they are, but the point of the statement --presented as 'science,' is that higher functioning animals are smart enough to have sex more often than merely to procreate. This statement thereby creates two types of sex: procreative and pleasure sex. Follow this thinking down the line and what it says is: "Nature made sex for two purposes therefore using science to separate the two isn't sinful, but highly intelligent."
Now, this isn't the way the argument is framed in discussion because it would be easy to punch holes in this formation of it. Instead what we get is: "Marriage needs sex, it is the ultimate expression of love, and therefore our most carnal needs and impulses are met when when perform this conjugal act." What this statement does is distort what the ultimate expression of love is: Children. See, animals have sex for procreation, it is done instinctively and without "emotion." We on the other hand insert emotion, e.g. love. Therefore, we add to what sex is, we do not subtract, i.e. we take the procreative and add caritas, or at least we should. [*fn. 2]
···•°···
When we add contraception, what we are really doing is subtracting from the formula. We are taking out the procreative and therefore destroying the full essence of sex, and thereby love, but we are also assaulting God. What we are doing is saying, "Sex is imperfect the way You made it, because it has this mettlesome side effect: children." We buy into the dualistic idea of sex, procreative and pleasurable, in that we believe we can have one without the other. Our actions convey the message to God that we know better and we know how sex, pleasure, love, and children affect us and that we know not only how to control those thing but also what is best for us. What an insulting and deplorable thing to do? Do we really think that we somehow make sex better by adding contraception? Have we somehow used our intelligence to outsmart "Nature"? Is the Condom the sexual equivalent of the snowpant? "All the fun of playing in the snow, and none of the pain?" Secular culture is famous for this type of distorted and misaligned thinking. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't excuse it, but it does explain it --although it remains perverted and toxic.
As Catholics though, our assault is even more violent because we have the precepts and teachings of the Faith to guide us. Instead though we listen to the master of lies, Satan, and allow him to take the most precious of things and distort it to the point of destruction. So you see, the point of the Condom controversy was the secular world trying to perform an "A HA! Gotcha!" on the Catholic faith. They would want nothing more than to convince us of their lie, if for no other reason than to get an ultimate justification to the belief by removing the one remain opposition to their way of thought. Instead though, they exposed further how off-target and foolish their premise is. Contraception does not add to sex, it subtracts. It destroys essential elements that give a fulness to sex. Contraception hurts people, and there is no way around it. I can tell you that this is a Homily that most of us won't hear this Sunday, but we need to hear it, desperately.
_______________________________________
*Notes:
• fn. 1:: Some consider NFP contraception because it is preventative. There is an argument to be had here, but it would involve getting into the philosophical discussion pertaining to double effect and this is neither the time nor the place for that discussion. For the sake of this post, let us consider NFP to be completely acceptable both to the teachings of the Faith (which it is) and to my thesis (which I believe that it is.)
• fn. 2: Love is a complex word. I use the Latin caritas here purposely, but I also know that when we add love that isn't caritas we change the purpose of sex, and its nature. The essence is what is important, not the word used. This is one of the major problems in our culture: the improper use or understanding of the word love.
