The Church – Contraception and Celibacy October 31, 2009
Posted by Donnacha Maguire in Roman Catholic Church.Tags: Abortionm Pro Choice, Anglican Communion, Celibacy, Contraception, Great Schism, Orthodox Church, Pope, Pro Life, Roman Catholic Church, Transubstantiation
trackback
Some people are confused as to my position on the Roman Catholic Church. Here’s the story. I was baptised and confirmed as a Catholic. I attend Mass every few weeks. I believe in the Church doctrines i.e. transubstantiation, papal infallibility, immaculate conception, virgin births and being pro-life. I have no real desire to change any of the above or any of the theological basis of the church. I do however take umbrage with two main issues – the Church ban on contraception and priestly celibacy.
Contraception
As I stated above, I am pro-life. This stance has evolved over the past number of years from a position of being neutral and even some times pro-choice to near militant pro-life. I am now at the stage in my life where I can see where there are justifications for ending a pregnancy i.e. life of the mother is at risk, and where the child if born will suffer severe pain and most certain death. Here is where I just cannot understand the Churches position. The Church is against using Abortion as a means of contraception. Therefore, the most immediate thing that should be done is the stop the high levels of unwanted pregnancies. Using a condom does not kill a foetus, it simply places a barrier thus stopping the sperm from fertilising the ovum and forming a zygote which in turn is implanted on the wall of the vagina. I dont see any killing of babies here, do you? The argument that it is stopping the natural progression of life being created is a bit of bull to be honest. Sure what happens if people cannot produce sperm or ova, should they have not been allowed to marry in the first place? St. Thomas Aquinas states that “And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse”.
I’m looking for help in understanding the Churches position on this matter. I really want to understand. Any devout Catholics out there to enlighten me?
Priestly Celibacy
Last week, we heard about the new Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans who wish to be in full and visible communion with the Pope . Included in this new Constitution is the ability of currently married Anglican clergy to become fully licensed Catholic priests and keep their wives. If I were a Catholic priest or indeed a Catholic seminarian, I’d be rightly annoyed at this. The church is saying we will bend our rules for Anglican converts but will remain stringent with Roman Catholics.
Let’s look at the history of the whole thing. Prior to the 11th Century, priests could be married across the Christian Churches. Following the Great Schism of 1054, the Churches of the West (Roman Catholic) and East (Orthodox) spilt due to issues regarding who was top dog so to speak. As before, priests in the Orthodox Church were allowed to marry but then could not become a Bishop. However, in the Western Church, priestly celibacy began to be enforced until such a time where it became nearly dogmatic. Some people have claimed that the Church Hierarchy was worried about church property and especially land. What would happen if a married parish priest died? Who would inherit the land However, in the 21st Century, I think there are enough legal mechanisms to allow us bypass any of these concerns, don’t ya think? The other main reason used in favour of priestly celibacy is that a priest must be free from family pressures and ties to tend to his parishioners. Again, has the Orthodox Church crumbled as a result of these pressures? Indeed, has the Anglican Church been damaged by their priests and Bishops being married? I think not.
On the above two issues, I cannot see any justification for the ban on Contraception and the enforcement of priestly celibacy.
I think you’re fighting a losing battle if you try to make sense of church policies.
As far as I’m concerned, the bible is a good read but should definitely be placed on the fiction section of the shelf.
I was shocked to read that you believe in Church doctrines. Do you believe in the Old Testament? More specifically, do you believe that the gay people Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven”? Do you think you will go to hell for being gay? If not, then what allows you to pick and choose the bits of the bible that fit your moral code?
I’m not even going to bother arguing about transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception. They are beyond me.
To me, the idea of papal infallibility would be laughable if it weren’t for the consequences of the popes decisions. Papal infallibility is the idea that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error. This means that there is no possibility that the pope’s recent decision regarding the Anglican ministers was in error. It doesn’t matter if the catholic priests are pissed off. The pope is infallible. BOLLOX TO THAT!
How about the idea of limbo? The church (until recently) purported the notion of a place called Limbo for children who died before baptism. When the pope finally denounced the idea of this place called Limbo he must have been correct (since he is infallible), but popes before him were also infallible so Limbo must have existed. I wonder why God got rid of Limbo? BOLLOX TO THAT!
Millions of people die of AIDs related illness each year in Africa. They can’t use contraception because the pope says so. And of course, the pope is infallible so he’s correct. God doesn’t want these people using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDs. He’d rather they just spend their entire lives without one of the very few pleasures they actually do experience. BOLLOX TO THAT!
How about popes who were involved in the sale of indulgences, nepotism, simony and pluralism? Were they infallible? I think not.
He’s a human like the rest of us. I don’t believe that he is an evil or bad man, but as the head of a church that teaches that the use of contraception is wrong, that pre-marital sex is wrong, that homosexuals will be sent to hell, that non-Christians will go to hell, that babies were sent to Limbo (until recently of course), et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I believe that he does more harm than good, and is most certainly not infallible.
As for the virgin birth, which is more likely? That the whole natural order of the universe was suspended, or that a Jewish mink told a lie?
I don’t suppose that I need to state that I think the entire thing is a fictional story that has improved over the years (people don’t repeat gossip, they improve it). If I’ve offended anyone with my response, I apologise. That was not my intention. I was just giving my opinion.
First of all, “virgin births”…plural? I thought there was only one?
Second of all, a fertilized egg is not implanted in the wall of the vagina. Learn some biology.
Third, as John pointed out, if you believe in papal infallibility than you’re not allowed to take issue with any church doctrine. Plain and simple. You take it all, or the whole foundation of your faith is compromised. I can accept Catholics who take a more liberal view of the faith and recognize that the Pope and church leaders are human and subject to human folly. But if you’re going to espouse the truth of papal infallibility and then argue that some things are wrong? You’re just deluding yourself and flying in the face of what you supposedly believe.
And there are way bigger fish to fry than the celibacy issue. Contraception is a big one, yes. But priestly celibacy? For real? If you’re gay you should really be more concerned with some more pressing issues of church teaching for the sake of your immortal soul.
@Clare. You are right. A fertilised egg is implanted on the walls of the uterus and there has been only one Virgin Birth.
Clare, you obviously have an underlying dislike of the Catholic Church; but there is no need to obnoxious.
Priestly Celibacy is an important issue. It is what is holding back the church in my opinion. Yes I’m gay and I accept that the Church has issues with homosexuality. I accept that there is nothing I can do about that. I prefer to talk about things that can be changed – such as celibacy.
With regard to Papal Infallibility, I made a typo. I should have said I accepted it, not believed in it. Papail Infallability is here and I cant see it ever changing.
If you believe that the Pope is Jesus’s representative on Earth, the next logical step is that God speaks through him. Now, the question is then asked if the Pope speaks on some thing 100 odd years ago and defines it as doctrine; can a different Pope come back today and redefine the doctrine?
Again, let me state that I’m not trying to insult anyone here, I’m just expressing my opinion.
Can I assume that saying “I should have said I accepted it, not believed in it.” means that you don’t actually believe it? If you don’t believe in it why accept it? When you accept the notion of Papal infallibility, then you accept that people in the third world are being taught not to use contraception and are spreading HIV.
For me this is a big issue. The church still has a a lot of sway in many parts of the world and it could be put to great use if people were given proper sex education instead of teaching them not to use contraception.
I still can’t understand why you identify as a roman catholic. Do you believe that if you have sex with a man, and if you do not repent (and actually be sorry), that you will be sent to burn in hell for all eternity? If not, then you’re not a Roman Catholic. If you don’t believe in Papal infalibility, then you’re not a Roman Catholic.
I think that a lot of us were so steeped in Roman Catholic culture (or the Irish version of it), that we still cling to it as it was a huge part of our lives. That was the case for me anyway.
On an unrelated note, I’d like to comment on one of my least favourite of the ten commandments:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods”
Or economy would be totally fucked if nobody coveted their neighbours goods. Capitalism would never have been heard of. I’d like to know your stance as a religious Fianna Fáil supporter. Bare in mind that it might come back to bite you in the ass if you announce that you don’t support capitalism. If, on the other hand you conceed that we should covet our neighbours goods, then you run the risk of spending eternity in a fierce firey blaze. Which comes first FF or God?
I’m kinda taking the piss on this one, but I still think I have a valid question.
John with regard to the commandments. They are a set of rules written about 3000 years ago for a group of people totally different to todays population. So I think you need to look at them in that light.
Secondlly, I’m not an avowed capitalist. I think i fit in between a social democratic and liberal economic thinking. I think if you live your business life in a way that doesnt deliberately try to take from others with out paying a fair price , then you arent doing too bad. Desiring or coveting stuff is a bad thing. It can consume a person very easily and that is where a person needs to see that while making money to support oneself and ones family, it should not be the sole desire in your life.
As for which comes before God, politics / the state or God.. I say give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is Gods.
I dont see FF as being a cpaitalist party and our history shows that it has been equally concerned with Social Justice as it has been with economic success. In fact, the reason we look for economic prosperity is to allow us look after those who need help.
I prob havnt answered your question too well, but I’m sure you will tell me if I havnt..
The life of the priest conforms to the chastity of the life of Christ himself and to follow Christ in being “married” to the Holy Church, to give ones all to God in lay terms.
@Brian, how do you reconcile that statement with the many thousands of Catholic priests pre 1054 who worked in communities, lived good lives and worked to do Christs work on earth? Or the thousands of Orthodox priests in todays world? Aret they not conforming to Christs vision?
Simple-Why give the most and the good when you can give the all and the best.
You’ve just lost my vote.
Contraception
The Church’s teaching on this has been consistent from the start – Onan was struck dead for it. So we know that it is against God, the Holy Spirit is the giver of life, when people use contracepton they actively reject the gift of life – the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a rejection of God.
Celibacy
Again the Church is consistent. St Paul wrote about this. You cannot serve two masters. There is no doubt that a man would be torn between the interests of his family and the interests of the parish or indeed the Church. This plagued the Anglicans as their was always a scramble to get to the richer parishes and thus instead of being a vocation the Church became a career. The recent hulaballo about Anglican priests being allowed to join evenif they are married is also consistent. This is nothing new. In fact St Peter was married.
The Bible or the Pope don’t speak the word of God. The Bible was a compilation of books written by various authors well after the birth and death of Christ(who could very well be a fictional character in these books), compiled by Emperor Constantine, who wasn’t even a Christian, in the 4th Century AD.
For Billions of people to base their lives on this book and blindly following its enigmatic stories and messages is a disaster.
Religion is supposed to teach us right from wrong. Is it wrong to sentence millions of disadvantaged Third World people to Death by AIDs? Of course it is. Its about time a well pampered old man looked at the bigger picture and at reality.
There shouldn’t be a question on Priest Celibacy. There shouldn’t be any priests. All they do is talk to imaginary friends and read out of an old book. Priests used to drive around in new cars while the Irish starved. The Potbelly Priests would preach about the dignity of poverty.
And just a point on the Jesus’s marital status. What would it matter wheither he was married or not? This is the 21st Century. I presume that he didn’t use condoms either.
“I’m looking for help in understanding the Churches position on this matter. I really want to understand. Any devout Catholics out there to enlighten me?” – says the Author of the leading Post.
Regrettably, no one can help you if your views are entrenched, formed by others of similar orientation, and elaborated by DIY work.
The basic literature is the Church documents, which bind a Catholic’s conscience. Reasonably: one can neither agree nor disagree before one has read and understood them. If you wish to know what documents I have in mind, and which specific extracts of them, leave a comment. I will come to it in December.
Very helpful are sound, not dissenting, manuals of Moral Theology. The manual of choice is the three volume work by Professor Grisez: The Way of the Lord Jesus, which can be obtained from St. Paul – Alba House, New York; or on CD : “Welcome to the Catholic Church” (it contains many other topics, besides the complete text of the work) from the Harmony Media http://www.harmonymedia.com
The complete text is also accessible on http://ajgoddard.webnode.com/products/grisez-germain/ AND http://grisez.trinreports.com/grisez_collaborators.html
His (actually Ford and Grisez) essential essay is: “Contraception and Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium”, Theological Studies, 39, No. 2, pp 258-312. Ford, S.J. was a member of Paul VI’ Commission, and Grisez was Ford’s advisor.
One of he fundamental moral principles is that one may not do evil to achieve good. The contraception being intrinsically evil, it may not be used to achieve good, whatever the latter is.
You say: “I can see where there are justifications for ending a pregnancy i.e. life of the mother is at risk, and where the child if born will suffer severe pain and most certain death.”
The “ending a pregnancy”, is killing an innocent human being, which is an evil act whatever good intentions one has in mind, whether related to a mother, or the embryo/foetus in her womb. In fact, if one kills the latter, no good can accrue to him/her because he/she is – dead.
“I cannot see any justification for the …enforcement of priestly celibacy.”
It is not the “enforcement” but choice, a sort of freely chosen contract with the Church. If some is not fit to take the job he should look for another.
Taken generally, the practice of the Western part of the Catholic Church has proved to be very efficient in pastoral terms: compared with other Christian bodies she is most widespread, and is expanding. There are problems with individuals, but that would not change much if the clergy were married: another problems would surface. The maintenance of a family, for example; or extramarital affairs etc.
After all, nobody is compelled to offer himself for priesthood, everybody has to undergo a several years’ testing, and everybody can be released from his priestly obligation if he, later, realizes that he is not up to it.