Well, the so-called Innocent Smith is proving to be, at the very least, a fine writer, who is engaging me for what he takes to be tribalism over at his blog Innocent Smith’s Journal, particulary in his “A Response to Kevin O’Brien”.
One thing I very much admire in him – he is assenting to Church teaching that he doesn’t quite swallow intellectually.
Take, for example, contraception.
I struggled with Church teaching on contraception after I became Catholic – not because of the teaching itself but because the defenders of the teaching make such a poor case for it.
In particular you’ll hear from every corner, “The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception!” This is turned into an apology for “Natural Family Planning”, which is “natural”, even though it involves measuring daily basal temperature and analysing mucus. “Why on earth,” I used to ask myself, “would we oppose artifical contraception but endorse natural contraception? Are we Christian Scientists? Forgive my tribalism, but are we tree hugging Gaia lovers?”
It took a lot of prayer and study for the truth to dawn on me.
And the truth is this. When people tell you the the Church is opposed to artificial contraception, don’t believe them.
The Church is opposed to contraception. Period. “Artificial” or otherwise.
I won’t go into why the Chruch is opposed to contraception here, other than to say that once you permit contraception, no logical case can be made against any sexual activity outside of “the marital act”; in fact once you permit contraception, no logical case can be made against “gay marriage” or divorce.
What I will say is what I’ve said before, but what apparently is not said enough, so that well-intentioned intelligent men like Innocent Smith wander about confused, admiring Andrew Sullivan.
The dichotomy between “natural contraception” and “artificial contraception” is entirely false and wrong. It is a false dichotomy. “Natural Family Planning” is simply “Periodic Continence” – in other words, if you don’t want somebody getting pregnant, DON’T HAVE SEX. It’s not “contraception” at all. It’s refraining from the “marital act” during fertile periods – itself a questionable procedure, but one that is at least not typically material for mortal sin, as the use of a contraceptive agent always is.
If this were made more clear, then the consistency of Catholic teaching would appear, even to those who disagree with it.
For the consistency of Catholic teaching – the seamless garment – the fact that these are not disparate assertions of disconnected moral precepts, but elements of an organic whole – this is among the most astonishing bits of evidence of this all being much more than a merely human thing, a construct of man, a natural and fallible philosophy.
The more a man like “Innocent Smith” examines the ratio behind his fides, the more he will see that this is an encounter not with a series of teachings, but with a Man.
Spot on, Kevin!
Something seldom mentioned any more is what chemical contraception does to a woman’s body. People, Catholics included, are always talking about whether it’s moral, but in all that talk, everyone has forgotten the extremely serious consequences for women’s health.
Where do you think all this breast cancer comes from?
And why don’t the fund-raisers for a cure ever mention that? Maybe because the Breast Cancer Foundation is funded by Planned Parenthood? Remember the recent hoopla about that from the Susan Koman (sp?) bunch? A strange quiet descended immediately afterwards….
You’re not going to get non-Catholic women, or even most Catholic women, to care about the morality of contraception. So WHY isn’t anyone telling them they’re raising their risk of breast cancer by 40 percent? It used to be a rare disease, you know. They’re also doubling their risk of blood clot and stroke–among other things…
But you never hear about these things …. just “women’s rights” from one side and “Church teaching” from the other.”
Most women do not know what an unnatural and violent assault contraception is to their bodies–and their brains, too, by the way.
Actually, religion has nothing to do with the fact that contraception is extremely dangerous, probably as dangerous to the body as heavy smoking, not to mention the hormonal imbalance in the brain that has caused a virtual pandemic of depression. That’s what the discussion should be about.
I’m glad about your clarification on the confusion of the phrase “artificial contraception” here. I’ve been saying for years that we really need to correct this because it gives people such an incorrect impression. (I write about semantics and do’s and don’ts of speaking about NFP here: http://www.nfpworksblog.com/2009/04/16/nfp-talk-dos-donts/ )
You’re also very right that there’s very much a lack of formation on the marriage and sexuality front, and anemic amount of NFP/ sexuality apologetics resources (There’s more informational resources out there, but not nearly as many that are specifically focused on apologetic discourse.)