Contracept or Not

What to do?  Is it ok to use artificial methods of contraception?  That can be a difficult question to answer honestly and objectively looking at both sides of the issue.  Many love the convenience of artificial birth control and therefore neglect to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of artificial birth control for fear of what they might find.  Today, this author will try to remedy this situation by looking at the reasons why we shouldn’t be using artificial contraception.

At first I avoided the issue of an authoritative Church because I knew what the Catholic Church taught on the subject of contraceptive use.  And in this way I could claim ignorance of Her authority, I never took the time to find out why she taught as She did.  I was fooling myself that I wasn’t doing anything wrong.  For we Catholics know that to use contraception is against the teachings of the Church on moral grounds.  God joined the aspect of unity between two married people with the aspect of procreation in a single act of marital love.  What God has joined together let no man separate.

Then, one day I took the bull by the horns and looked at why the Catholic Church taught what She did on the issue.  I could deny it no longer and told my wife that I no longer believed in artificial contraceptive use. 

There are many Scriptural reasons why using contraception is wrong, the main verse demonstrating the misuse of the mans seed making the sex act infertile (spilling it on the ground as seen in Genesis 38:9-10) was the withdrawal method and in doing so the man was killed for it.  Now some will tell you that Onan was killed because 1)he did not produce offspring for his deceased brother and that’s why God killed him.  And others will tell you that it was because 2)he did not do as Jacob, his father, had told him to do.  But that is simply not the case. 

First let us look at the passage in question:

Then Judah said to Onan (Judah’s son), Go into your brother's wife(Tamar) and do what it is right for a husband's brother to do; make her your wife and get offspring for your brother.  But Onan, seeing that the offspring would not be his, went in to his brother's wife, but let his seed go on to the earth, so that he might not get offspring for his brother.  And what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, so that he put him to death, like his brother. (Gen 38:8-10)

What we see here is a brothers duty to produce an offspring with the wife of a dead brother, this duty is called the levirate law.  Both in Gen 38:8-10, the Onan incident, and in Deuteronomy (hereafter Deut) 25:7-10 we find someone refusing to give offspring to their dead brothers wife.  And yet one is killed the other is not.  The difference in methods on how these men refused to give offspring will determine the reason for the difference in penalty.  The man in Deut. simply did not take the woman and therefore avoided giving offspring while Onan did take her and spilled his seed to avoid giving offspring.  The spilling of seed is the difference in the act and explains the difference in penalty.  Death instead of humiliation.

In fact any misuse of the mans seed is extremely condemned by God.  We find that any spilling of the seed in any unsuitable receptacle (ie inhospitable to the propagation of life) brings about the penalty of death.  The penalty for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is death and yet nowhere in Scripture do we see such a penalty for two women.  Levitical Law tells us that the wasting of seed with non-regenerative sexual acts warrants death, even the wasting of animal seed warrants death(Lev 18:22-23; 20:13).  That’s why there is no such death penalty anywhere in Scripture for the sexual pleasure of two women…because there is no wasted seed.

This idea of wasting seed to be sinful can be seen in mountains of Christian writings from the very beginnings of Christianity itself.  But today I’d like to ask a simple question.  Since the use of contraception was condemned as going against God’s law by Christians for over 2000 years, why would we now believe that God changed His mind on the subject? Since we know that God doesn’t change when reading Malachi 9:6 “For I am the Lord, and I change not”.  What was a truth of God revealed to man 2000 years ago will remain the same today. 

God Bless

Nathan

Fortnight 4 Freedom

The U.S. Bishops have called for a Fortnight for Freedom from June 21 to July 4, 2014. Please visit www.fortnight4freedom.org for more information on this important time of prayer, education, and action in support of religious freedom!

 

What do we mean by religious liberty?

 

In Catholic teaching, the Second Vatican Council explained in Dignitatis Humanae that the foundation of the principle of religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person, who is endowed with reason and free will, and therefore able to take responsibility for his or her actions. Religious liberty is protected in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal and state laws. Religious liberty includes more than our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home; it also encompasses our ability to contribute freely to the common good of all Americans.

"We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. "

Religious Liberty Is More Than Freedom of Worship

 

Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home. It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith? Without religious liberty properly understood, all Americans suffer, deprived of the essential contribution in education, health care, feeding the hungry, civil rights, and social services that religious Americans make every day, both here at home and overseas.

 

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it. Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups. All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations.

 

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement about the administration's contraception and sterilization mandate that captured exactly the danger that we face:

Most troubling, is the Administration's underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its "religious" character and liberties. Many faiths firmly believe in being open to and engaged with broader society and fellow citizens of other faiths. The Administration's ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization's religious principles. This is deeply disappointing.

This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.

 

 

"All the Energies the Catholic Community Can Muster"

 

What we ask is nothing more than that our God-given right to religious liberty be respected. We ask nothing less than that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which recognize that right, be respected.

 

In insisting that our liberties as Americans be respected, we know as bishops that what our Holy Father said is true. This work belongs to "an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture."

As bishops we seek to bring the light of the Gospel to our public life, but the work of politics is properly that of committed and courageous lay Catholics. We exhort them to be both engaged and articulate in insisting that as Catholics and as Americans we do not have to choose between the two. There is an urgent need for the lay faithful, in cooperation with Christians, Jews, and others, to impress upon our elected representatives the importance of continued protection of religious liberty in a free society.

 

We address a particular word to those holding public office. It is your noble task to govern for the common good. It does not serve the common good to treat the good works of religious believers as a threat to our common life; to the contrary, they are essential to its proper functioning. It is also your task to protect and defend those fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This ought not to be a partisan issue. The Constitution is not for Democrats or Republicans or Independents. It is for all of us, and a great nonpartisan effort should be led by our elected representatives to ensure that it remains so.

 

Text taken from, and for more information, please go to:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/

 

God Bless
Nathan

Mortal Sin

We learned in last week’s leaflet that Jesus instituted a Church with authority (Mat 18:15-18).  Now are we free to ignore this Church, preferring our own particular ideas, our own preferences?  In a strict sense we are free to do as we wish BUT for those of us who are Christians, we are most free when we follow God. 

As Christians we are to follow God as Jesus taught us.  We put our trust in His message and teachings.  As a famous 20^th century philosopher once said: “To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says.  There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice.”  (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Jesus advised us to listen to His Church when He told us to bring our disagreements to it in Mat 18.  Specifically, He told the apostles to tell it to the Church and if they will not listen to the Church then we are to treat them as though they are lost.  Jesus said: “tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And so we see that Jesus’ advice in determining the truth is to go to His Church.  On matters of faith and morals we also know that whatever the Church proclaims to be true is infallibly known to be true since Jesus said that whatever the Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven means that whatever the Church binds on earth must also be true.

Now, if you are aware of a Church teaching defined as true and binding but reject it anyway then you are freely going against the advice of Jesus as well as rejecting the authority of His Church.  If all these conditions are met, that is first, that you are aware of the binding authority of His Church and secondly freely reject it, which is a very grave matter, then you are rejecting the rightful authority given to His Church by God Himself.   You are perpetrating a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches in the necessity of keeping the Sabbath day Holy by going to Mass on Sunday?  If you are aware of this and freely neglect to go without good reason then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches on the grave matter of artificial contraception usage to be against the moral law?  If you are aware of this teaching of the Church and yet freely use artificial contraception anyway then you are committing a mortal sin.

Are you aware that the Church Jesus founded teaches that human life is sacred and to be protected?  If you were aware of this and also aware of the extreme abortion views of one political candidate while the only other candidate opposing him clearly had a better life-affirming stand but voted for the one with the extreme abortion proponent anyway then you committed a mortal sin.

Please, examine your conscience before receiving our Lord in the Eucharist.  Are you guilty of mortal sin?  If you are then I urge you to go to confession before receiving the Eucharist since you would be “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 1:27)

God Bless
Nathan

Freedom of Religion

Last week we learned that destroying a growing and living human being is truly against the Will of God.  Therefore all followers of God are obliged NOT to do those things.  Our Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Augustine when defining ‘sin’.  Augustine says: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor cause by a perverse attachment to certain goods.  It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.  It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (CCC 1849)

The Catechism also defines sin thusly:  “Sin is an offense against God.  It is a revolt against God through the will to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil.  Sin is therefore “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”” (CCC 1850)

We know there are two levels of gravity of sin, venial and mortal, Scripture is very clear on that point (1 john 5:16).  A venial sin is an act that does not completely cut himself off from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ.  A mortal sin does indeed cut him off from God.  The Catechism defines these terms this way: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a great violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God”… “Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.” (CCC 1855)

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)  Therefore since we know that contraception  and abortion are of a grave matter (very serious subject) then for one to deliberately (freely) and knowingly perform these or help others in performing these acts is morally evil (ie mortal sin).

It has been a tenant of our Catholic faith since the very beginning that abortion and the use of contraception is always and everywhere gravely wrong.  Whether anyone else believes this to be right or wrong is irrelevant for our purposes today.   If our conscience dictates that it is a great moral evil to use contraception or abortafacient drugs then by virtue of loving our fellow man we are also obliged not to directly help them acquire such products and services.  For example, if it is morally wrong for me to intentionally kill an innocent bystander then it is also morally wrong for me to knowingly supply the gun so that someone else can kill him.  Since 1973, ever since abortion has been legalized, federal law does not protect all of its citizens.  It currently discriminates against a class of persons not yet born and with the Healthcare services being proposed by Obama (ie, Obamacare) the government will force its citizens to pay for these deadly services whether we have religious objections to them or not.  We must make our voices heard.  The voice of reason needs to overcome or our great country will no longer be a country where freedom or religion prevails.  We must prevent our government from trampling on our right to freely exercise our religion in the public square.

Even though “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense” as well as “the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders…” we as a society are obliged to defend our constitutional right to freedom of religion.  PLEASE, let us rise up and be heard.

Prepared by a St Denis parishoner

Birth of John the Baptist

Sexual gratification as the ultimate pleasure in our society today, as well as pagan culture from two-thousand years ago has been ingrained in us as an absolute good.  This mentality is so strong in us as a culture that whatever consequences that arrive from this mentality is a problem to eliminate, or get rid of when they should be celebrated.   If John the Baptist or even Jesus Christ been conceived outside of the life-affirming Jewish culture there is a real possibility that one or both could have been prevented from being born through abortion or murdered after birth (infanticide) if contraception failed.  Many individuals in today’s society, as well as outside Jewish culture from 2000 years ago, regard any living being before birth as something other than an actual living human being.  But what does science and the Word of God say on this subject?  Well, let’s see.

John the Baptist was born around 6 months before Jesus, was it at his birth that John can be first thought of as a living human being?  Well , we know that many babies are living human beings even when they are born premature which means that John was a human being in the belly of his mother no matter if he was born a day, a week, a month even up to almost three months premature.  As science advances we find the period of viability, where the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb, to be creeping to even earlier stages of gestation. 

Logic tells us that location does not change the nature of something.  Whether a baby is inside or outside a mother’s womb, it is still a human being.  And since it is growing then this human being, no matter how small, is alive. Logic also tells us that if something is growing then it’s not dead. 

A tumor may be an extension, or an appendage of the mother’s body but from the moment the sperm meets the egg to a full-grown fetus, this particular new entity has its own unique DNA.  Therefore the fetus is not a mother’s ‘appendage’.  It is separate although dependant on someone else to survive.  Just as dependant as newborns are separate and dependant on someone else to feed and protect them.  Just like the government protects the eggs of the endangered bald eagle in the same fashion as the bird itself, so too should we protect this newly formed living human being in the mother’s womb just as much as the newborn baby. 

Scripture is also pretty clear on this matter as well.  Few people would argue that the Bible clearly prohibits taking the life of an innocent person.  Verses like Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”  Or even more clearly in Proverbs 6:16-19 which states: “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood…”

In the Bible, the word used to describe a born and unborn baby is the same word.  That’s because the author of those passages, as they were inspired by God, didn’t see any real distinction between the two.  Whether they were born or not, the writers understood them to be persons.  Just a few verses earlier from our Gospel reading for today we see the word “brephos” used to describe the unborn John the Baptist “For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant[brephos] in my womb leaped for joy.”(Luke 1:44) and a little later in the Gospel of Luke, in verse 2:12 we see this same word used to describe a newborn: “And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant[brephos]  wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.”  So in the eyes of the Scriptural writers, they believed that the living human being is a baby whether inside or outside the womb.

Since the body, without the spirit, is dead (James 2:26) and we know that the baby is alive by the simple fact that it is growing we must accept the fact that if it is alive then it has a soul/spirit.  In fact, the Nicene Creed tells us that “we believe in the Holy Spirit…the giver of life” which means that the baby receives the soul at conception when science tells us that a new human being begins its life.   Therefore we find that there is a new living person as soon as conception occurs which means that an abortion truly is the killing of an innocent person.

 The right to life is the pinnacle of all our rights because any other right is worthless if one does not have life.  To be Catholic then is to be pro-life, not only in belief but in action.  So please do not prevent the giver of life from coming to you through artificial contraception.  Or even worse, turning your back on the Holy Spirit by having an abortion which may ‘solve’ a problem but creates new ones through physical, psychological and emotional sufferings for the would-be mother.  Rachel’s Vineyard is a wonderful organization that helps women deal with most any post-abortion issues.  Please contact them at http://www.rachelshope.org for help.   No sin is larger than God’s capacity to forgive but please, let us be Catholic when the moment counts.

Prepared by a St-Denis parishioner