A Flawed Design

God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

In a nutshell, the Pope is saying that marriage is not created by blind chance, but it is part of God's design, and therefore said marriage will result in a perfect and inseparable union. Unfortunately, if this was the case, I don't think both of my parents would be on their third marriage. In fact, such statistics that suggest that divorce is higher and marriages are decreasing undeniably lessen the credibility of God's design.

I strongly disagree with this passage for several reasons. First, it is declarations like this one that give divorce a terrible reputation. Indeed, divorce is not a good thing, but many times it alleviates a really bad situation and allows all involved parties (the parents, the children) to move on. Second, this passage indirectly states that if two people are to divorce, all they are really doing is abandoning God's design, which is supposed to be inherently flawless. With so much divorce these days, is it really us or God's design? In fact, I would even claim that we have become a culture of divorce. A successful marriage is seemingly more rare these days, which makes me believe that this 'design' has been miscalculated.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

In this section the Pope is essentially stating that abortion and other ways of terminating or preventing pregnancy, such as sterilization, are evil or sinful. He is directly addressing methods such as Plan B in the paragraph "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse is specifically intended to prevent procreation...". He seems to be condemning the use of condoms as well. Overall, these precautions "...contradict the moral order..." and "...must therefore be judged unworthy of man...".

I would say that the Pope's outlook on this subject is rather out-dated and even suppressing. The fact that modern technology has given us multiple options in the area of birth control should be embraced, not frowned upon, in my opinion, that is. The Pope is advocating the removal of a woman's right and free will to prevent a pregnancy, or terminate it if she so chooses. In certain situations, the prevention or termination of pregnancy may be the safest or most beneficial choice a woman has. For instance, if a woman's life was put in jeopardy because of a complicated pregnancy, I believe she should have the option to save herself. A person should be able to make decisions which are in their best interest, without feeling like a sinner. Additionally, if a pregnancy was the result of a rape a woman should have the option to terminate the pregnancy. If financially a couple is not in a place to have a child, they should have options in which to prevent childbirth. By generalizing methods of contraception as immoral, the Pope is overlooking many personal situations in which bringing a baby into the world would not be what is best.

Though Plan B and condoms compared to abortion are vastly different, if a situation arises in which a couple should not bring a child into the world, they should have access to these methods. Couples should be able to make the decision for themselves, as circumstances will differ person-to-person.

Plan B

The Pope paragraph 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.

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

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.”

In the above paragraph, the Pope has stated many things. It’s pretty obvious that he is against abortion from what he said in the first paragraph—“…all direction abortion, even for therapeutic reasons are absolutely excluded as lawful”. Then he goes to say his beliefs on birth control—“…equally condemned is direct sterilization”. Along with what he said in the second little paragraph, he is certainly against birth control, as well. What I really noticed, though, is what he said in the bottom section about excluding any action taken before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse. Here it seems like without directly saying so, the Pope is surely against any use of the Plan B pill. He feels that this is another violation to procreation and life, so it should be seen as unlawful.

To me, what the pope is saying really takes away from people’s (especially women’s) freedoms. It’s a woman’s choice whether she wants to take the Plan B pill or not. She could have had intercourse in unwanted circumstances, such as being raped. What would the pope say about that situation? I feel like when he describes what is lawful against what is sinful, he basically only looks at married couples and situations within marriage. What if the woman is not married and doesn’t want to give birth to a child that came about in a bad situation or that wasn’t with a man she loved. Besides these conditions, sometimes mistakes happen. So if a woman believes what she did was a mistake and she shouldn’t have a child at the moment then she should be allowed to make that choice. Our society is moving forward with new technologies, and what the pope is saying is very limiting. From his point of view, Plan B can be seen as evil, but to many others today it can be seen as a life saver. As we said in class, our lives have changed due to the creation of new technologies, and not everyone will be accepting of them, but every person should be allowed to make their own choices.

The Natural Law

In the “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI mentions the importance of observing the natural law:

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

The Pope explains that although sexual intercourse doesn’t scientifically lead to procreation every single time, it is the duty of a husband and wife (alluding to the marital roles of a man and woman) to realize the sole purpose of such acts. He basically says that engaging in sexual activity means a man and woman accept their duty of procreation which can occur at any time [assuming artificial birth control methods are abstained.] The laws of nature, between a male and a female who should be married, regarding the number of children they are capable of having together, is already predetermined and therefore shouldn’t be tampered with.

In my opinion, this is complete and utter bogus. This statement engages several major debates – marriage between a man and a woman only, anti contraceptive methods, as well as the disapproval of scientific procedures such as in vitro to help with infertility. This would insinuate that couples who can’t afford children, couples who are too young, women who have been raped, and women as well as men who are having difficulties with fertility, among countless other scenarios, should either accept the responsibility of raising a child (despite the circumstances) OR learn to be content that having children was not his or her destiny.

This can have the most detrimental impact on an individual’s social, psychological, emotional, and physical well-being. That’s why birth control (including condoms and various forms of the pill) should be a completely acceptable alternative. There are plenty of responsible, involved couples who need to satisfy basic biological needs every now and then who are simply not ready to raise children. Seeking treatment for infertility problems is another option that should not be shunned upon. This problem doesn't reflect the parenting abilities of an individual and doesn't mean he or she shouldn't be allowed to have the same privilege of having kids. After all, there are plenty of people who are parents that shouldn't be.

The Duggars are a prime example of a family following the proposed “natural law” by having baby after baby, believing that each child is a gift from God that was meant to be. Frankly, this is not practical and no, all those children were not preserved in space and time to be born when they were. It’s called...having sex without protection will eventually lead to pregnancy in most cases and the Duggars just happened to get lucky being so fertile. Overall, we should be in control of our own bodies and should have the power to make decisions that will affect us. No one else should have that influence.

Marriage and Unity

In paragraph 12 of Humanae Vitae in the topic of “Union and Procreation” “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” This is talking about how one is suppose to be faithful in marriage. By taking the oath of marriage it is saying that you have an inseparable connection that is established by God when you stood at the altar and made your vows. It makes the commitment of marriage seem very powerful and basically says that you are united for with the person you took that vow with.

http://www.pendoreilleco.org/photos/Auditor/gods_design_for_marriage_umjr.jpg

I believe that when one takes the vow of marriage and commits to the act of it that they are committing to be faithful and united with that person. When people say their vows at an alter, I believe that they should mean them and stand behind them. I think Natural Law definitely comes into play here, that it is just morally right to stand behind that vow of unity. It is universal reasoning at work here and if someone isn’t ready to take that vow, they shouldn’t be getting married in the first place. I think the Pope is right here saying that people shouldn’t break their “united significance”. I do think though that in modern society today, divorce is common and sometimes this will be broken with temptation being so prevalent today. Not all marriages can work and that is just life. I think that what he is saying can only go to a certain extent. People should be faithful and trustworthy while in the marriage and no wrongdoings onto the other are morally right but if two people can simply just not get along there is nothing wrong with breaking that vow and moving on if both agree. I don’t think that religion should have anything to do with marriage unless the two people want it to have to do their marriage. In the establishment clause it states, “Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” People should be able to get married however they want, but the vows, whatever those be at the alter they should live by through out their marriage to each other. Marriage should be a sacred type of thing and it should not be done, to simply be done. Natural law versus social constructive is a tough subject but I think that most people would agree that it is morally right when you agree to get married there are things that are morally correct do while being married such as being faithful. This has been seen through out time obviously that people are supposed to be faithful during marriage. It is seen as morally correct and when people break that it has brought about great trouble in the past such as violence, etc. Marriage is a significant promise that should be kept to best of one’s ability while committed to one.

Let Me Take Control!

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

I am for the use of birth control. While I myself don’t suffer from the problem of severe acne, anemia, or a few other diseases that birth control can help protect against, I think it’s important to look at birth control as a ‘therapeutic mean’ to cure these things. Therapeutic is defined as of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods or providing or assisting in a cure, by www.m-w.com.

Some people do take birth control to prevent procreation, but that is not what I’m focusing on. This is about birth control being used for reasons other than preventing birth.

According to Lawrence E Gibson M.D. at Mayo Clinic,

“Birth control pills for acne work by reducing sebum — an oily substance that lubricates your hair and skin.” Also adding, “Acne is a skin condition that occurs when your hair follicles become plugged with oil and dead skin cells. Acne most commonly appears on your face, neck, chest, back and shoulders. Acne can be distressing and annoyingly persistent. Acne lesions heal slowly, and when one begins to resolve, others seem to crop up. Depending on its severity, acne can cause emotional distress and lead to scarring of the skin. The good news is that effective treatments are available — and the earlier treatment is started, the lower your risk of lasting physical and emotional damage.”

The Mayo Clinic also notes some cancerous growths in the lining of the uterus (endometrial cancer), ovarian cancer and formation of ovarian cysts can be prevented (by birth control) as well.

In another publishing, this one by www.plannedparenthood.org, it states:

“Most birth control pills, as well as the patch and the ring, contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combined hormone methods, and they can protect against acne, anemia, bad cramps, bone thinning, cysts in the breasts and ovaries, endometrial and ovarian cancers, heavy periods, irregular periods, and premenstrual symptoms (like headaches and depression).”

The two above sources are talking about oral contraception’s as a form of birth control, like a pill, but another form of birth control can prevent the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.

On the religion blog for www.cnn.com, in November 2010 it reports “Pope Benedict XVI said in comments released Saturday that the use of condoms may be morally acceptable in some cases to prevent the spread of AIDS, possibly foreshadowing a shift in the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the issue.”

So I would ask what Pope Paul VI thought of that. One of his own kind, saying-even encouraging-that birth control maybe be morally acceptable. I don’t think looking to one person, from one sect of people, from 100 years ago is reasonable when it comes to the health and issues of society today.

I believe there are multiple reasons to take birth control, and not to just prevent conception, or procreation.

To whose Benefit????

Qoutes from pope

“On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. “(10)

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

“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)

“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”

In the above four paraphrases the Pope makes it undoubtedly clear that abortion, specifically, any act of destroying human life is sinful.  He states that man have an obligation to fulfill God’s will, in this case pro-creation, and that they do not have the power to regulate the giving of life for that is solely Gods power. He says that it is unlawful to do evil for the better of good henceforth unlawful to carry out any form of abortion, with the excuse for a better life for the society.

So where do I stand?? I believe that what the popes’ suggestion (in essence banning abortion), is bound to have both direct and indirect negative impacts on the society.  This is mainly because the way of living that he assumes is partially existent in today’s world. Most of what he stated was based on the fact that people only engage in sexual intercourse when or after they get married, that at that point they would then have an obligation to facilitate perpetuation of life by having kids which is one of their main obligations as a married couple. This picture might seem all rosy, but that is all that it is, a picture….most of today’s sexually active population are doing so out of the traditional bounds of marriage, from young teens to old and mature women. Is this right or wrong, well people are entitled to the own opinions, but to allow innocent lives to be brought into a situation in which their unwanted, sent to foster homes, never get a stable life are always suffering or born with lifetime diseases, is in my opinion far much worse than the ‘evil’ of removing these ‘fetuses’ before they become living, breathing, human beings.

Let’s take scenario in which the pending Ohio Fetal Heartbeat Bill is passed, the repercussions of this would be far beyond imaginable.  Yes it would go along with the pope’s beliefs, but it would be crippling to society.  Many young girls who would have accidentally became pregnant, or have been victims of rape resulting in pregnancy, would be forced to carry these babies to full term. Once they have these kids they are financially unstable to take care of them, adoption becomes the only option. This would have negative impacts on the child, and the mother if she might have wanted to keep her baby. The same fate would probably be faced by kids born into general financially unstable homes. One important thing to keep in mind is that passing the bill would not stop abortion at all. Those mothers who are poor would resort to other unhealthy means of pregnancy termination, those with the funds would fly to a place it would be possible. Result? You end up with a very large population of unwanted kids, as well as increased mortality due to unsafe abortions. The government would end up having to pour out more money just to ensure that these kids are fed and that those young women’s hospital bills are paid for. Need I remind you that this would all be affecting most of the working class women…  So to whose benefit would passing this bill be? If it’s not for the kids, if it’s not for the society,  not for the economy, if it’s not for women (as men are insignificantly affected) Why do it? You cant regualte what people decide to do in their privacy behind locked doors but is that to say an innocent child should be allowed to suffer?

I think an interesting analogy to take into the consideration here would be that of race used by Stuart Hall. He stated in his video on Moodle that classification is human ‘nature’ mainly because it helps attain order. He spoke about how systems of classification become the dispositions of power. So Pope’s letter becomes a call of classifying between good and evil. A way of putting in place a system where those have sex outside the bounds of marriage suffer the consequences of bearing unwanted kids. In the battle between those pro-life and those for abortion, classification again becomes a source conflict in distinguishing when abortion becomes murder.

In my opinion all this CLASSIFICATION is fuelled in one way or another by someone with intrinsic needs, the pope, to try and get as many following Christians as possible and those against abortion, to try and fulfill their own personal beliefs. I say the issue should just be out there let each individual decide what they want to do without having to confine to any blanketing rule or law.