Vatican II also promoted the idea that humans have free will, and must be responsible for their actions. A person (not under government control) still has the ability to choose. The whole contraception/abortion argument isn’t about license, but trusting women to know the alternatives, and make correct choices.

Unfortunately, this issue of acknowledging that women are free thinking beings who should be adult enough to control their bodies has caused the Catholic church to backpedal on the free will and tolerance front because those same women would not/will not conform to other arch conservative ideas of the church designed to keep people in shackles “for their own good.”

Anyone who argues that this planet needs more people(the result of Humanae Vitae, rabid pro-lifers and people wanting the church to grow by procreation (as opposed to people who are pro-choice and/or think the church has a good product to sell, so they want to join) has rocks in their head, regardless of gender.

This is malarkey- none of your measurements of the fall of civilization are measured! What is the baseline for lowered morality? Whose morality? When and how was this measured? Lessened respect for women- What? Women actually have rights and freedoms approaching men’s now. The coercive use of technology might apply to countries like China but it is not coercive as much as it is self-protective! Most humans realize overpopulation is a very real problem and we cant dismiss efforts to stave off famine and plagues as “big- brother is out to get us”
I think all of us 30 year olds know people who went from liberal to conservative once they had babies and started paying taxes. That is not vindication of a papal teaching.

As someone who sits squarely in the middle, I view the clash between liberals and conservatives altogether fascinating. I think the linked article is a wonderful read, and it presents some insightful commentary that unfortunately most liberals would never be open-minded enough to really think deeply about.

But….I find alarming the use of social science to prove some of the author’s points. I am well aware social science is the darling of liberals and secularists, so its funny to see it used against them, but social science can never prove that the introduction and widespread use of contraceptives CAUSES a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, a rise in infidelity, or a lessening of respect for women by men. They may be correlated, but causation is a whole other matter entirely. As an example how correlation doesn’t tell you much, take the example of seeing more umbrellas when it’s raining. Umbrellas and rain are correlated, but that doesn’t mean umbrellas cause rain.

The (seemingly recent) resurgence of Humane Vitae is really interesting. Humane Vitae’s broad themes are very appealing–much more so than the specific prohibitions on contraceptive methods in which most ground their opposition. However, when I look at the lack of well-reasoned theology in Humane Vitae (that’s not surprising given that Paul VI went against his own theologians), the fact that the weight of current theology is still against Humane Vitae, and Humane Vitae’s apparent contribution to the rampant sexism in the Church, I wonder whether the resurgence is on balance a good thing.

“a lessening of respect for women by men”

What a load of rubbish. Women in general (at least in the US and the Western world) have gained respect over the last 40 years. You need only point to the increased role of women in government and professional positions.

Places where women do NOT have respect are often found in religious settings (Catholic, LDS, and weirdo sects come quickly to mind).

Securalist you make an excellent point in your second paragraph.

I am all for the use of non-abortive contraception. My feelings on abortion stil stand the same, which is that once a unique human life with their own DNA is created (shortly after conception), that life has the same rights under the Constitution as I do. The fact that one body is inside another is moot.

The physical act of sexual intercourse may serve many masters, not the least of which is procreation. To bind them morally in a theological edict will create the opportunity to use human nature to predict the inevitable consequences and to view the failure to abide as proof of the edict.

It is this use of reason and theological expression of cynicism that I believe Jesus is here to transform.

Unfortunately, I think many people misunderstand that free will means being free to do what is RIGHT. In this case, doing what is right would be doing what is most respectful to both people in the act of sexual intercourse.

One other thing to note, and Tim’s comment made me think about it. Most women and men do not realize that many popular forms of “contraception” are actually abortifacients. For example, the “morning after” pill does nothing to prevent the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. It acts only to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting, thereby killing it. More and more, forms of contraception are aimed at preventing implantation in the uterus than preventing ovulation or killing sperm. Even the birth control pill now contains lower levels of ovulation-inhibiting hormones and higher levels of hormones that inhibit the fertilized egg’s travel and implantation in the uterus.

The pharmaceutical industry and the media have supplanted the term “implantation” with the word “conception” thereby conflating the two meanings. The industry uses this tactic to further target and manipulate those that believe life begins at true conception, i.e. fertilization.

The position of Humane Vitae was not consistant with the Church’s position on birth control. The Church has never explained the difference between putting a time barrier (having sex outside the period of ovulation) and placing a physical barrier (the pill.) How could the Church have a position on something that didn’t exist 25 years earlier - namely, the pill?
Her conclusions are in the eye of the beholder - no society or organization does more to belittle the position of women in its organizational structure. Its male employees are forbidden to even have a relationship with women.

1. A general lowering of moral standards throughout society.

I think moral standards have risen enormously, especially since the establishment of the US. The “classless society” and the notion that all men (and women, lately) are equal in the eyes of the state and the law is on of the most powerful engines of morality that I can think of. Let’s not confuse sexual chastity with morality. One can be quite capable of evil and obscenity without ever having performed the act.

2. A rise in infidelity.

I’d like to see how the numbers were arrived at. Infidelity is a pretty common theme throughout recorded history.

3. A lessening of respect for women by men.

The true arguement is really one of lessening respect period. That’s part of that equality thing, one earns it, not has it magically bestowed based on gender or social station. Except parents.

4. The coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.

I’m sure China will be willing to vacate that policy when manna rains down. Until then, you can triage in the womb or triage on the field, but either way, when the need outpaces the resources by the factors they are contending with, hard choices will have to be made.

“We are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential.”

I’d venture that Tantrics feel the same, but it is the kind of philosophy that only works for the hard-core believer or the libido-less. We can’t all be hard-core and if the Universal Church is to be truly universal, it needs to understand that it is working with flesh encased beings.

Teresa, free will does not mean “humans know best” as you promote. It means you’re free to make choices, good and bad. Advancing free will does not perclude the church promoting “right.”

You’re confusing catholicism with humanism, and there really is no correlation between the two.

There is no free will in the view of one who determines what is “right” as the only choice. This is the seduction of the church’s laws. Today’s theological edicts of what is “right and wrong” is more of the same offered by the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. The Bible reminds us of this.

Choosing the knowledge of what is “right and wrong” in the Garden of Eden was the beginning of the abuse of what is “right”, and in contradiction to your statement, it was done with the free will granted by God. Before this we had no knowledge of what is “right and wrong.” This is the world that God offered us, and we rejected.

The impact of that choice, as warned by God, was a life of pain and toil in the world and death. We are barred by an angel of God from the Tree of Life.

Jesus is here to engage us in a conversation with God to transform this. To continue to exercise righteousness and judgment would be to reject God’s grace, again.

It is difficult to see the possibility of the world with out the use of “right and wrong.” It is clear to me, that from the first story in the Bible until the last, this is what God wants for us.

It begins with the language. I am inspired by life. I consider it a gift. I choose it for myself. I am committed to it, nurturing it, creating it, loving it, furthering it in all that I say and do. In being this way I believe I glorify God.

I can approach this by being righteous and obedient to what I “know” God consider’s “right.”

Jesus assures me that if I give up the way of judgment and choose acceptance and love for myself as a way of being in the world, I will be choosing life over death, and be with God for ever.

The church creates distractions by pontificating laws and suggesting obedience for salvation.

Jesus’ message was one of inspiration available to everyone. The church that publishes laws, and declare it with an authority self proclaimed from God are no different than the Pharisees that Jesus warned us of.

Dr. Sherry Tyree vital contributions herein and voice points to the fervent demand that the witness of all members of Christ faithful contributes to the vitality of the faith in everyway. The voices of lay faithful, consistent, fervent, and in fact bold witness to the truth of the gospel is a significant hallmark of what constitutes uniquely the mystical and corporate body of Christ as the church. Sherry’s consistent and continuous insights attests as a true witness to the truth that liberates, unfreezing the ignorant and the helmed in from the shackles of their predicaments of hopelessness. Sherry’s stances has been so enriching and fundamental that it shames some of the rebellious priests and nuns, who hypocritically think that they alone and their opinions need to matter, and they insatiate desire to be the cynosure of delusive attention cannot make them witness with tenacity to the truths of the gospel. Here, Sherry’s representation through insightful and incisive nuances portrayed in a non-threatening and unabashed way, matched with facts and cogent observations, indicate that the church belongs to the laity who must at all times be the articulate voices of hope and even courageous witnesses to the certain truths of the gospel of Christ.
Sherry is doing what many in Aquinas cannot do. We need more of such perspectives rooted in the imbibed and eternal truths of the gospel as articulated by the official Catholic Church for all people, even when they despise or refuse to listen. Thank you Sherry for being a great missionary, and a great and grounded evangelizer. My prayers are with you, that your faith may be strengthened and that it may never fail.

Scott – I’m really curious at what you mean by your post. I think you are confusing some things.

“There is no free will in the view of one who determines what is “right” as the only choice.”

-Sure there is. You’re free to disagree, follow or not follow the teaching. If I teach that Jesus is the only “right” way to salvation, you can agree, disagree, believe the way I do, or reject it. It doesn’t mean that my teaching is any less absolute about being the only way; it may be absolutely true, and by rejecting it, you may be damning yourself. Free will is still entirely maintained.

“Choosing the knowledge of what is “right and wrong” in the Garden of Eden was the beginning of the abuse of what is “right”, and in contradiction to your statement, it was done with the free will granted by God. Before this we had no knowledge of what is “right and wrong.” This is the world that God offered us, and we rejected”

-So, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit, they didn’t understand that to do so would be wrong?

“Jesus is here to engage us in a conversation with God to transform this. To continue to exercise righteousness and judgment would be to reject God’s grace, again.”

-What’s your basis for this? Jesus made very clear judgments of right and wrong. We are to accept, but not reject right and wrong. Jesus did not condone the lifestyle of the woman at the well. He did accept her. Big difference. Would he say that she was doing wrong? Absolutely. Did he condemn her? No.
“It is difficult to see the possibility of the world with out the use of “right and wrong.” It is clear to me, that from the first story in the Bible until the last, this is what God wants for us.”

-Not difficult, impossible. Right and wrong are facts of life. I think your view of the overall point of the Bible is anything but clear.

“Jesus assures me that if I give up the way of judgment and choose acceptance and love for myself as a way of being in the world, I will be choosing life over death, and be with God for ever.”

-I’m dying to see how you base this on any scripture. Jesus assures you that by accepting HIM you will be with God forever. Judgment is God’s, and not for us. That’s fine. This is not about judging others; it’s about teaching truth. Making determination of right and wrong is not what the Bible means by “judge not.” It is clear that we are to use God’s word to determine right and wrong. Scripture upon scripture tell us what to do with evil (“wrong”) and to embrace righteousness (“right”). How can we do this without making the judgment call about what right and wrong are.
“The church creates distractions by pontificating laws and suggesting obedience for salvation.
Jesus’ message was one of inspiration available to everyone. The church that publishes laws, and declare it with an authority self proclaimed from God are no different than the Pharisees that Jesus warned us of.”

-Very true.

I’m not big on the catholic church creating teachings that are outside of the teachings of scripture, or loosely based on scripture, and calling them “god given” decrees. This is like the Pharisees. But, God through the Bible has determined what is right, and yet is the author of our free will. Sound teachings of right and wrong based on scripture do not detract from free will, but rather point people towards the truth (“right”) of God (for the record, I don’t really think this teaching falls in the category of “soundly based on scripture”). Determining what is right, even as the only choice, is about helping people exercise free will in a way that is in harmony with God’s will.