Did the Pope just say condoms are ok?
I dismissed the first email I got on this yesterday as malarkey. Then more links to more articles with more seemingly impossible headlines started coming in…
Such a compromise on sexual morality by the Catholic Church would be devastating, and again, in my mind impossible.
And as far as I can tell, the Pope has proposed no such compromise. Read this explanation of the Pope’s statement – complete and in context – in the National Catholic Register. It is very helpful, particularly good friend Janet Smith’s analogy:
If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.
My analogy might have stated the robber was using a gun he thought had no bullets in it, because condoms are by no means foolproof.
But that’s quibbling past the major point. The Pope was actually expressing a profound, charitable thought, if I understand him correctly, while not conceding on this critical topic at all. Of course the world won’t (want to) understand what he was saying.
The author of the NCR “expect(s) the Vatican will be issuing a clarification quite soon.” Me, too. Hold tight.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The media has taken what the Pope actually said so out of context. But that isn’t surprizing. Nor have they paid any attention to the fact that this was, as the Pope said, his private opinion. As he said elsewhere in the book: “It goes without saying that the Pope can have private opinions that are wrong.” Not that I am saying he is, just that the media is missing the point.
Jimmy Akin is great on this point. Here is another article that carefully (unlike the MSM) explains what is going on
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220%3Apope-benedict-on-condoms-in-qlight-of-the-worldq&catid=53%3Acwr2010&Itemid=70
I think you meant “foolproof.”
Speaking as a non-Catholic, who doesn’t take issue with true contraception like condoms: The quote does make more sense in context. But I don’t really like the robbing a bank analogy, because robbing a bank is always wrong and sex isn’t. Nobody thinks it’s wrong to have sex with your spouse, for instance. In countries that have been decimated by AIDS, it’s common for one spouse to be HIV+ and worried about infecting the other. Is a condom appropriate in that situation? He’s trying to be safe about something that isn’t inherently bad…
I’m just curious what the various religious positions are on this, so please, chime in.
What does the pope expect a HIV-positive married man or woman to do – willingly infect their spouse? That would be murder.
Kristina- I hope that if I had a fatal disease, transmissible through sex, I would love my husband more than I love sex, and not do anything to put him at risk, even with a condom.
I heard a story recently (looking for the source now) where a room of HIV/AIDS educators was asked if they would have condom-protected sex with someone they knew was infected, and not a single person put their hand up.
I understand that condoms have been hijacked by the sexually immoral but I don’t think condoms in and of themselves are bad. I refuse to use hormonal birth control and my husband does not think we are financially able to have another child right now so the logical compromise is condoms. And my husband is Catholic (though not practicing at all). But we are married and St. Paul talks about not withholding yourself sexually from your spouse if at all possible. Sex is an important part of marriage. Its not the end all be all but it is important!
Kristina, the charitable thing to do would be to abstain for good and for the good and out of love for your spouse.
Why is this form of sacrificial love so hard for you to comprehend?
There is another great analysis here at American Papist:
http://catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=11735
The another explanation from Fr. Fessio:
Fr Joseph Fessio SJ, editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press and a former student of Benedict XVI, said: “It would be wrong to say, ‘Pope Approves Condoms’. He’s saying it’s immoral but in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.”
You cannot expect everyone to conform to your religious views, but you can expect condoms to stop many unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs. I don’t understand why they’re a bad thing, especially if the result is fewer abortions.
Jill, you are correct that such a compromise from the Catholic Church and the Pope would be impossible. It will never happen. Thank you for believing the best of the Church and the Holy Father. Once again, the media has taken words completely out of context and misrepresented the Pope’s thoughts. What a surprise.
Papa Benedict is in no way altering Church teaching or compromising the truth. Please also check out Catholic Online for a good article on the topic. (www.catholic.org)
I have heard of the blessing of the fishing fleet and the blessing of the animals, but the ‘blessing’ of the condom?!?!
If HIV was always fatal and having sex with an HIV infected person always resulted in HIV infection, then a healthy person knowingly and willfully having sex with an HIV infected person would be ‘suicide’ and the already HIV infected person agreeing to have sex with the healthy person, with or without informing them of your illness, would be guilty of some form of homicide.
Playing Russian roulette with a condom is not my idea of ‘safe sex’ or selfless love.
In todays reality, engaging in sex outside of a mutually monagamous relationship between two healthy people is like, playing Russian roulette with a revlover that has all but one chamber in the cylinder loaded.
1. HIV
2. syphilis
3. gonorrhea
4. herpes
5. chlamydia
6. pregancy [I do not consider pregnancy an STD but it is a possibility that can also occur in conjunction with the contracting of an STD and it can also infect the pre-natal child en utero.]
Sara-
I fell pregnant TWICE while using condoms. Fortunately for my children, my husband and I were fully committed to each other and aware that sex makes babies, (sometimes even when you’re really really careful) and we were prepared to welcome those children into our family.
Unfortunately for the children of many of my clients, their parents forgot that sex makes babies, or just didn’t think “it” would happen to them, and their broken/leaking condom resulted in an abortion.
Over half of abortions are performed on women who were using some form of contraception at the time they fell pregnant, and the repeat rate of abortion is about 40% (approximately 40% of women who have one abortion will have a second.) Meanwhile, condoms are available at every drug store, gas station, grocery store, and public restroom, and are often handed out in schools and on college campuses for FREE. I’m sure they’d scatter them from passing aircraft and add them to our water supply if they could.
Perhaps the answer is more responsibility, not more latex.
I’m not saying more condoms are the answer, but that perhaps they arent the devil.
The real tragedy of the Catholic Church’s backwards stance on sexual protection is that it disproportionately harms people in the poorest, least-developed Catholic countries (Guatemala, Philippines, etc.). In developed societies, most Catholics don’t try to adhere to every single papal edict because it just isn’t practical or sensible to do so. I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
Right here Joan. I would rather die than engage in contraceptive sex with my wife.
The media isn’t taking the Pope’s comment out of context. They’re just completely wrong on interpreting what the Pope is saying.
I understand the Pope’s comment as an example of conscience, not an instruction on morality. The example of the male prostitute demonstrates a stirring in his conscience toward a good, in this case, preventing the spread of HIV.
This is not to be understood as the Pope endorsing condom use by male prostitutes.
Exactly, CC. That is a great, concise understanding of what the situation is. Very pithy, but very accurate.
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
I do and I teach it to teens too.
I don’t think you personally know many practicing Catholics joan. But you’ve met some here.
michelle, you just gave me so much hope! I want another baby so badly and I HATE using condoms but… you gave me that little glimmer of hope :-)
“The real tragedy of the Catholic Church’s backwards stance on sexual protection…”
There’s your first problem right there, Joan. The Church’s teaching about sexuality is that it is holy and when properly expressed between a husband and wife, requires no protection. Only when the gift of sex is abused and mistreated, thus people are abused and mistreated, is there some need for “protection.” But condoms and birth control pills do not protect from abuse and mistreatment. They do not protect people from using each other and degrading themselves.
The Church is not backwards nor tragic. On the contrary, only the Church sees humanity in all its worth and dignity.
And for the record, I’m a Catholic who takes Church teaching on sexuality and contraception very seriously. I also believe all those papal edicts.
I think part of this is the media getting this wrong or blowing it out of proportion on purpose. They’re looking for something to sound the alarm bells about, and then follow up a news item with the predictable editorials two days later.
I really wish that even those who may disagree with the Catholic Church on this would at least learn what they’re disagreeing with, rather than misunderstanding the church’s reasoning. I also wish people knew what Natural Family Planning is, rather than assuming it’s an old, unreliable rhythm method. I also wish people would connect the dots and see that several of the predicted side effects of the rising use of contraceptives have indeed come true, including the propensity of people to place sex at the center of everything…
Vatican City (AP)- Stung by a recent media uproar over suggestions that the Pontiff may have suggested in his new book that it may sometimes be permissible for Catholics to use condoms, Pope Benedict XVI issued a clear and decisive rejoinder, “Wherefore there should be no further confusion on a matter of grave importance.”
Cutting through some of the ‘Vatican Speak’, the Holy Father stated unambiguously,
“Since those of ill will, and not mere confusion are already using condoms (and here I refer to pro-abortion activists), I merely stated that it would be a service to humanity if they persisted in this practice so long as they persist in their unbelief. It was a rare unguarded moment on my part and I ask all the faithful to realize the derivative benefit to humanity arising from such pride on the part of the Culture of Death.”
Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood welcomed the Pontiff’s comments. “We applaud the Holy Father’s recognizing our psychological and spiritual impotence, and rejoice that he has embraced our acting that out through our bodies.”
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
I did and still do. I used NFP to space all my children. Outside of marriage I remained chaste until marriage.
Cecile is incorrect too. Sorry to hear that Joan know no one who takes the Church’s sexual teaching seriously … count me in as a practicing Catholic who won’t contracept now that I know and understand the teaching. I hope that you will now stop saying that you know no one who takes the teaching seriously.
Seriously, you are hanging around the wrong people. My first Spiritual Director told me that “you are who you hang around with.” Quite true. Hang around those who love God and love the Church, you can’t help but become more serious about those things, learn more and live more authentically.
Hang around those who could care less about living a virtuous life and one risks leading a more sinful life. It’s easier to fall into error and sin when you are led by those who don’t know or who don’t care.
The idea of the Pope saying “it’s okay to use condoms if you’re a prostitute and want to avoid HIV” is probably the most hilarious thing I’ve heard in the last several days. :D
This discussion needs to move beyond morality toward practicality. There has been testimony here about the virtues of unprotected, procreative marital sex. Great. But notice that all of you live in first world countries where it is considerably easier to choose to live such a lifestyle? It seems that, for the most part, both partners in all these relationships are on board. What about in instances where there is incredible gender disparity? Where a young teen is married off to an older man, a situation in which she may not want to potentially conceive every time she has sex, but has no say in protecting herself? Or what about if a woman’s family falls on hard times and she must provide for them, and sex work is the most viable option? Or what if market forces contribute to the need for a large migrant worker population, where men are away from their wives for months and months on end and seek the comfort of other women?
The injunction to “lead a virtuous life” sort of falls flat in instances where people face such structural violence. And let’s be frank: women are at a significant disadvantage in places where gender discrimination is rampant. Yes, in an ideal world a couple would be completely monogamous and faithful. But in the mean time while you fetishize virginity and preach morality, waiting for some huge behavior change (mind you, without attending to larger structural changes that need to happen first), countless women are at risk of contracting HIV from their partners and husbands: “For women in many parts of the world, the behavior that puts them at greatest risk for HIV infection is unprotected sex within marriage.”
http://www.hivcenternyc.org/research/gender/marriage.html
Joy,
I was engaging in a bit of satire. ;-)
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
Let me count quickly, between myself, my family, my husband’s family, my friends and acquaintances….. 10 people I can count immediately, more if I had a little while to think. Try again.
“Sydney M
November 21st, 2010 at 11:34 am
michelle, you just gave me so much hope! I want another baby so badly and I HATE using condoms but… you gave me that little glimmer of hope “
Just like I promised on another thread, sending you a huge delivery of “baby dust” :) Just a week ago we found out we’re pregnant! I so wish the same news for you too!!!
I fell pregnant
Hi Michelle! I so appreciate your posts. I just had to say I did a double-take when I saw you write that you “fell pregnant.” It makes it sound as if you “fell ill.” I understand your point but I just wanted to clarify that though you were surprised that your birth control failed, you were not pregnant by accident, and that it was not an illness or disease. You became pregnant. Unplanned by you, but certainly not by the Lord. :) And welcome to the boards, btw. Your posts are excellent.
Vita, congratulations! :)
Sydney, you have my prayers. It is so hard when a husband and wife are not unified in their desire for another child, and I know how strong that desire is for us!!! May God give you the desire of your heart. :)
This discussion needs to move beyond morality toward practicality.
indeed, NFP and abstinence are HIGHLY practical. They also involve the virtues of fortitude, perseverance and self control which apparently you don’t think Third World citizens have.
I disagree.
I also do not think that condoms are the answer to the disparate situations you cite: instead changing cultural practices to make them more attentive to women’s needs should be the focus.
This is being done successfully in the case of FGM which is also a highly cultural practice.
Vita,
Congratulations. :D
Oh, for crying out loud…!
This is a prime case of people hearing what they want to hear, instead of what was actually said. It’s like having an academically challenged teenager sit in on a post-graduate lecture and run off with whatever sound-byte satisfied his own preconceived notions.
Pope Benedict was making an academically precise point (as anyone with even an ounce of knowledge about his history would know: personally overseeing the promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which condemns all artificial contraception as morally illicit), his authorship of Donum Vitae (which repeats the condemnation), his own experience with fighting contraception proponents in the wake of Humanae Vitae, etc.), and those who think in terms of “secular sound bytes” ran off with it in a nonsensical direction.
To those who are currently trumpeting this so-called “revelation”, I say this: DREAM ON.
To Megan, who thinks that condoms are a wonderful introduction into the impoverished and AIDS-ridden parts of Africa (and elsewhere), let me have the people themselves reply to you:
Telling men and women to keep sex sacred — to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful — is telling them to love one another deeply with their whole hearts. Most HIV infections in Africa are spread by sex outside of marriage: casual sex and infidelity. The solution is faithful love.
So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.
-Sam L. Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-Prevention Committee.
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
Hi Joan, I’m Kristen. Now you know one.
Joan,
Now you know three (Me and my wife.).
From a commenter on a website:
“The pope is saying that if a male prostitute, AS AN EXAMPLE, ONE example, was to use a condom with the intention of not spreading or contracting disease, it is a sign of, perhaps, a movement of his conscience towards realizing that sexuality has a holy purpose. It does not make exceptions or excuses…he is commenting on the attitude of the person who puts on the condom…the condom was rather ignored in his example”
I think this is very good summation.
From what I read, the approval is only for male prostitutes because the condom is not being used to block or arrest conception.
“Since those of ill will, and not mere confusion are already using condoms (and here I refer to pro-abortion activists), I merely stated that it would be a service to humanity…” – can you clarify this for me please Dr. Nadal? Does this mean that an anti-choicer who uses condoms is ‘of ill will’?
Alright. Point taken. I’ll amend my original statement thusly: I don’t know a single Catholic person in real life who takes the Church’s stance on those things seriously. I can’t say that I’m shocked that the people in my social and professional circles are generally more practical and liberal than the people that this site attracts.
Kel
November 21st, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Vita, congratulations!
Vannah
November 21st, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Vita,
Congratulations.
Thank you both!!!
“I can’t say that I’m shocked that the people in my social and professional circles are generally more practical…”
Excuse me. But NFP is eminently more practical and much healthier than popping a hormonal cocktail every morning or pumping your body full of all kinds of concoctions just before or after sex.
One reason you might not actually KNOW anyone who uses NFP is that most of us just don’t feel compelled to tell people these sort of intimate details in that way that you libertines feel the compulsion to tell us when and how you got spayed or what you did the previous night with goodness knows who. I’ve been to bridal and baby showers, Christmas parties and staff parties where someone sooner or later just seems to have the need to spill their guts about their sex life. In contrast, couples following the Catholic teaching in this area seem to feel quite at peace with life and quite able to recognize the reverence and sacredness of their relationship.
You should try to find a few new friends Joan!
Thanks for the suggestion, but religious fundamentalist conservatives are the kind of people I try to keep at arm’s length.
Joan, if you don’t know a single Catholic person in real life who takes Church teaching on sexuality and contraception seriously, it’s because you just don’t know a real Catholic. “Catholics” who ignore Church teaching and pick and choose what they will accept are simply not real Catholics. And again, it’s not a “stance.” It’s thoughtful, truthful teaching.
“I’ll amend my original statement thusly: I don’t know a single Catholic person in real life who takes the Church’s stance on those things seriously”
You meet them at Mass, joanie — a place you try to stay away from as much as possible, remember?
Thanks for the suggestion, but religious fundamentalist conservatives are the kind of people I try to keep at arm’s length.
Uh, I don’t know how to exactly break this to you joan but since you spend so much time here and obviously haven’t picked up on it, I feel obligated to just come out and tell you: A big chunk of the regulars here lean strongly in the directions you are trying to avoid.
You may want to think about spending your time at a different blog. (I hear Prochoice Gal is now Lonely Prochoice Gal. I feel safe in saying that she’d probably love your visits).
whisper, whisper (and joan thinks I am a dullard). wow.
Funny, I went to Catholic school back in the days when premarital sex was just the worst sin ever. (Guess abortion and same sex marriage are on the top of the charts now). Funny, we and our Catholic school boyfriends were rutting like rabbits by the time we got to senior year. Those girls who practiced contraception, didn’t have to drop out of school because they had “mono.”
And re condoms for those Catholic men who aren’t male prostitutes and who are infected with AIDS and are married - Guess Il Papa wants their wives to sacrifice their lives in order to be open to conception. Nice.
Another positive outcome of the Prostestant Reformation is that the mainline Protestant churches have a much more enlightened view on birth control – and condoms as a way to fight AIDS. The bottom line for the Catholic Church seems to be demographics. If Catholic women can’t access non “natural” family planning, there will be lots more Catholics. Of course, they’ll probably be living in squalor in third world Catholic countries but whatever….Unfettered reproduction – what better way to keep Catholic women as subservient “handmaidens.” It is said that the Catholic church is a misogynistic institution. Their view of women and reproduction would seem to reinforce that.
But back to the condom thing. Methinks Il Papa and his boys will have to do some damage control.
Funny, we and our Catholic school boyfriends were rutting like rabbits by the time we got to senior year.
It’s not the Catholic Church’s problem you did not listen to what was taught to you but used your Free Will to behave like an animal. Don’t use the word ‘we’ unless your willing to name your school and year of graduation because not all Catholic kids were behaving like Bugs Bunny.
Sign up for an RCIA class. And listen this time.
Here’s my take on the Pope’s words:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/11/21/the-pope-the-press-and-condoms-oh-my/
“The bottom line for the Catholic Church seems to be demographics. If Catholic women can’t access non “natural” family planning, there will be lots more Catholics. Of course, they’ll probably be living in squalor in third world Catholic countries but whatever….Unfettered reproduction – what better way to keep Catholic women as subservient “handmaidens.”
This is absolutely the problem, and until the Catholic Church decides that making people’s lives better is more important than making more people to control, there will be no modernizing the Church, much to the detriment of those poorest countries. Paradoxically, the Church’s unwillingness to adapt to modern society will ultimately be what marginalizes its profile in the civilized, wealthier countries and reduces its sphere of influence to only those countries where its presence is doing more harm than good. The real tragedy here is that this is an institution that, with its resources and global influence, could be doing great things to increase living standards in the most wretched parts of the world. It’s a genuine moral failing on the part of the Pope and the rest of the Church bureaucracy that they’ve forgotten all those other Church teachings about helping the poor and instead are concerned only with maintaining their bottom line at all costs.
The bottom line for the Church is to follow the will of her husband, her Lord, her Saviour. He gave the Great Commission authorizing her to speak of Him to all the world. Remaining faithful to her calling, she receives and nurtures many Gentiles (also Jews), my ancestors included. She is my mother, and it was her love for her Lord that made me.
Because the Church is the true Israel, I am a child of Abraham. The covenant God made with Abraham and his children also includes me. The Protestant church in which I was raised attaches great importance to the promises and curses of this covenant. We don’t use condoms, and that’s because we don’t need condoms. We follow the Lord’s family planning, i.e. the wedding before the physical union. We want large families for the expansion of the Church and the glory of her Lord. We enjoy large families, and we enjoy the blessings of forgiveness, God’s presence, and a happy future. Our Lord will take care of us.
DD,
There is no sin that God will not forgive.
God forgives the sin of abortion.
All sin is equal in His eyes.
“All sin is equal in His eyes.”
So then what’s the big deal? Haven’t you ever stolen something or told a lie? Abortion is no worse a sin than those two examples, so why the disproportionate guilt over that one particular act of sin?
“Funny, we and our Catholic school boyfriends were rutting like rabbits by the time we got to senior year. ”
hmm, wonder what school you went to cuz, that wasn’t happening at my school.
There were the few girls who did stuff but we all knew who THEY were. They were the ones who got in “trouble” and we learned from them that our parents were right when they told us to wait until marriage….. We saw their anxiety over pregnancy, their problems when they caught something and their broken hearts when they were dumped by a guy after he had his fun. Yeah, I think the animal analogy is probably spot on.
and yes, glad you figured out that the reason the Catholic Church is against condoms is because it wants millions more Catholic babies….
For Catholics faithful to their beliefs, large families are NOT a problem. We consider children a gift from God, even many children. And that’s the difference between you and the rest of us who do believe that the teachings of Christ are filled with wisdom.
About condoms:
The first task is not to hand out condoms, but to ask the people in these countries where HIV/AIDS is unbelievably common what they propose. Because I support birth control, but assuming that it’s the ultimate solution is 1). stupid, and I say this as an advocate of birth control and 2). ethnocentric. If the people we speak with say, “Yes, birth control.” Then alright. But here are some pointers that I ask all people commenting on this thread to keep in mind, including pro-choice and pro-life:
1). Don’t call them Third World. They’re not behind us.
2). Don’t throw around the word “modern” like Uganda isn’t modern. “It’s time to get with the program” is flawed on so many levels. I won’t go into much more detail, but I think that we can all guess why it’s ridiculous to pretend like America and (Western) Europe are more “modern” than Africa or South America. And that’s not what anyone said, but let’s be honest: discussions like this, it’s what people imply.
So let’s start from scratch. Take away all of our ideas on how to fix the rest of the world, and focus on actually thinking about these problems from their points of view. As I said, I support birth control, but not all cultures are of this opinion. We need to try and apply some, well, intelligence. We can solve the world’s problems, but first we have to understand that our culture doesn’t have all of the answers.
Sorry to get off topic, but I just read these threads, and I know that people mean well, but they can be problematic.
Okay. Where you were.
Joan, I would not say that all sin is equal in God’s eyes. There is, for example, the unforgiveable sin, but I don’t want to start a debate about it, only point out that there seem to be different levels. Certainly adultery, fornication, and murder are not unforgiveable, and I think that I get Carla’s point, which I would express in these words: All sin, no matter how big or small, deserves eternal punishment in hell. That’s because all sin is an attack on the holy God who is completely good and who cannot tolerate imperfection.
“Let me have the people themselves reply to you.”
Hoho! So ONE individual somehow represents an entire continent? Africa the country! I’m glad your three-second Google search brought you to such an unbiased source of info. as the Reverend Sam Ruteikara (also a prominent spokesperson for Uganda’s anti-gay movement, which, as you know, seeks to criminalize homosexuality and murder its “offenders”). Well done, PALLY.
Lots to address. First, let me say that Ruteikara is correct in one respect. Foreign relief organizations and NGO’s are often self-interested, self-sustaining affairs that do little to better the lives of people they purport to aid. Point well-taken. And we can look no further for an example of this “soft imperialism” than PEPFAR itself. Uganda as a country had moderate success decreasing HIV prevalence, partly thanks to the ABC campaign: abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. Married behavior change efforts and promoted contraception as a backup. Then PEPFAR came along and perhaps took Ruteikara’s advice, essentially stripping PEPFAR0-funded prevention efforts of their “condoms/contraception” component. And then, surprise surprise, HIV rates plateaued and started to increase. Coincidence?
We also can’t tout Uganda’s HIV prevention efforts as an unqualified “success story.” It has been hypothesized that HIV-positive Ugandans without access to antiretroviral therapy experienced more rapid progression to AIDS, resulting in a higher death rate than an HIV-infection rate. In other words, it may have looked like HIV transmission rates were decreasing, but in fact more people were just dying. Also, 57% of Uganda’s HIV-infected population=WOMEN. Women who are raped, stigmatized, unable to negotiate condom use with their partners, beaten by their husbands. You want to hear some of these women speak, PALLY? Hear them talk about how an abstinence-exclusive HIV prevention agenda keeps failing women? http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33240
“Adams Ochaya, a third year student at Makerere University observed: “You cannot talk about abstinence when poverty is still around. People are poor, and a woman might not say no to sex if she thinks she can get something out of it.”
“How will a woman abstain if she doesn’t even control her body? (If) she doesn’t decide when, where, how and with whom to have sex?” –Salome Nakaweesi Kimbugwe
“For Catholics faithful to their beliefs, large families are NOT a problem. We consider children a gift from God, even many children.”
Really? Even many children that you can’t afford? Obviously a large family is a problem for people who don’t have the time or resources to support it.
“The first task is not to hand out condoms, but to ask the people in these countries where HIV/AIDS is unbelievably common what they propose. Because I support birth control, but assuming that it’s the ultimate solution is 1). stupid, and I say this as an advocate of birth control and 2). ethnocentric. If the people we speak with say, “Yes, birth control.” Then alright.”
If the people in those countries knew what the problem was and how to solve it they wouldn’t need foreign help in the first place.
Here’s another good link: http://catholiconline.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=39269
The Pope is allowed to have a conversation about controversial subjects without it being a change in teaching. Way to misinterpret, though for those who want to twist it their own way.
hey anyone remember that quote, was it Groucho Marx, “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” Joan is always here, so she’s one of those people this site attracts.
The Church teaches moral truth. Those having sex outside of marriage are already violating Church teaching. Those who are not Catholic won’t care what the Church says. Those who are Catholic and ignore her teachings on sex will probably not feel bound by her teachings on contraception.
Sydney M, the sexual act to be an act of self-giving must be unitive and procreative. When you intentionally remove the procreative potential, you are still denying your spouse the sexual gift.
Jill, you are right to doubt these headlines. The Church is a beacon of Truth and it will never compromise in order to make people feel warm and fuzzy about their sin. People are always free to reject Christ and the Church. Last time I checked, priests aren’t guarding the condom aisle in CVS. But it never ceases to amuse me that those who claim to reject Catholic teaching spend so much time trying to get the Church to change that teaching to give them approval for whatever it is they want to be doing. If the Church is nothing but an archaic, misogynistic, empty-pewed, out of touch, irrelevant group of old men that will thankfully fade from existence, then I have to wonder….why do you care so much what they say?
Joan,
They do know what the problem is. They live in it. We don’t have to tell them anything. The solution is another matter entirely. We don’t have the solution, they don’t have the solution. We have to work together.
Your tone struck me as a little, well…they’re not toddlers. Okay? We can talk about them as human beings. They’re not units for Americans to save with our awesome American birth control. By all means, make it an option, but if a culture of people reject it, then we have to come up with more solutions together.
“We don’t have the solution, they don’t have the solution. We have to work together.”
If we don’t have the solution then we have nothing to contribute, and if they don’t have the solution either, then nothing can be done. But that’s too fatalistic for my tastes; I think we do have the solution and our modern technology can bring up the quality of life in those places dramatically. Their part in the solution is setting aside their superstition and helping us help them.
“By all means, make it an option, but if a culture of people reject it, then we have to come up with more solutions together.”
What, so they can reject the other solutions we present as well? There comes a point when all this feel-good liberal rhetoric hits the brick wall of reality and it simply becomes obvious that some social and cultural practices are, if not “better” than others, more efficient or practical at achieving desired ends. Condoms are efficient at preventing the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies; witch doctor magick is not.
Joan said, “If the people in those countries knew what the problem was and how to solve it they wouldn’t need foreign help in the first place.”
In many cases–in Uganda too, I think–they don’t even want it. I don’t have the sources at my fingertips, but I remember an article by an African economist, the gist of which was something to the effect of, “Please, please, STOP the foreign aid!” Then there’s a more recent article written by an atheist (though not an African one) which says that only the Church has been effective in Africa (at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece). Finally there have been more than one African Christians (and the Church is big in some parts of Africa) who have essentially said that the foreign aid only aggravates the problem.
Joan,
Alright. I can see this discussion will get nothing. You complain and complain about all the abuse you take and poor you but I had zip sympathy for you after reading, “Their part in the solution is setting aside their superstition and helping us help them.”
Zip sympathy.
People on this blog (and pro-choice people, too, I don’t doubt) don’t dislike you because you’re the beacon of enlightenment in our dull, muddied wayward minds. They dislike you because you contribute nothing but ignorant, unintelligent opinions. Period.
You no nothing about what happens around the world, but you think that you have the solution? Wake up. They’re not superstitions. They’re what keep us together. We will never progress past them. Period. Because they make up who we are. And I will personally be the person to laugh in your face at calling our policies and cultural practices “efficient.” It’s not true. We have some serious flaws, too.
And this is all I will say to you. Call me a mean, abusive bitch if you want. I’m not going to coddle your stupid assumptions on other cultures, the disabled, or anyone else who isn’t a perfect copy of you. Okay?
If more people understood what Natural Family Planning (NFP) is, perhaps they would see its wisdom. NFP is a way of understanding a woman’s fertility. During a woman’s menstrual cycle, her body undergoes specific changes that can be “read”, which indicate when a woman is or is not fertile. Under optimal conditions, sperm will live 3-5 days; an egg 12-24 hrs. That gives a woman only a small window of time (6 days max) in which to conceive. By knowing the signs of fertility, a married couple can either improve their chances of conception, or, if serious reasons exist, avoid conception through abstinence. It is over 99% effective at preventing conception when used properly (more effective than “The Pill”), costs nothing to use (much to the dismay of pharmaceutical companies), does no harm to a woman’s body (as opposed to hormonal contraception which is a known cause of breast cancer–see World Health Organization carcinogen Group I, 2005), and is morally acceptable. It is scientifically recognized. It is not the same as the older “rhythm” method that relied strictly on guessing the time of fertility mid-cycle according to the calendar–impractical for those with irregular periods or sudden hormonal changes due to stress, environment, etc.
And since it costs nothing to use, imagine the benefit to poor countries! Of course, you have to remember that there are still areas of the world where children are valued, and the idea of limiting family size may not be what they desire. But if there is serious reason to limit family size, NFP is ideal.
For more information, including class locations, see the website of the Couple to Couple League.
And yes, there are some of us, if only a remnant, who believe that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth. Unfortunately, the bishops and priests have not always been faithful to their vocations. They are human beings, after all, not immune to sin. But fortunately, Jesus promised to send His Spirit to protect the Church and Christ’s vicar, the Pope, from error in matters of faith and morals. So despite the human frailties of popes too, it can be certain that Church teaching will never change in regard to contraception. Jesus promised. We just have to wait for the world to catch up (and pray that our Protestant brothers and sisters will come to the same understanding).
DD: “Another positive outcome of the Prostestant Reformation is that the mainline Protestant churches have a much more enlightened view on birth control…”
That’s interesting. From the other side of the fence, the Catholic view on birth control is the more enlightened one. Funny how that works.
Joan, would you stand in front of a large, low-income family, and then tell their youngest two children that they never should have been allowed to come into existence?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
2005 SPIEGEL Interview with African Economics Expert: “Please Stop the Aid!”
The Catholic view on birth control is a crazy one. It holds people to an incredibly high moral standard and punishes them when they can’t attain it. I challenge you to read the testimonies of women for whom the concept of “abstinence” is irrelevant because they have little control over their bodies in the first place. Oh, vaginal microbicides and female condoms ruin the sacred values of the holy communion
blah blah blah.
The Church teaches one version of moral truth. – there, fixed.
Those having sex outside of marriage are already violating Church teaching. – which matters because?
Those who are not Catholic won’t care what the Church says – ah, that’s why.
“When you intentionally remove the procreative potential, you are still denying your spouse the sexual gift.” – so by knowingly having sex when you know that the chances of conception are zero to naff all, you are denying your spouse the sexual gift? What is it, a game of charades? So those who cannot conceive due to accident or disease mustn’t have sex?
“If the Church is nothing but an archaic, misogynistic, empty-pewed, out of touch, irrelevant group of old men that will thankfully fade from existence, then I have to wonder….why do you care so much what they say?” – because it is rich beyond parallel, has odious political interventionist control, continues to perpetrate its archaic, misogynistic views and works very very hard at spreading it’s ‘message’. That’s why people care.
…what better way to keep Catholic women as subservient “handmaidens.” It is said that the Catholic church is a misogynistic institution. Their view of women and reproduction would seem to reinforce that.
DD and Joan,
You seem to be unaware that the Church has the greatest respect for women. Jesus is the only person more venerated in the Church than Mary, the Mother of God. The Church was making women Doctors of the Church in the Middle Ages and women have been spiritual directors of Popes.
The ignorance you show in your knowledge of the Catholic Faith is appalling so I kindly suggest you don’t further embarrass yourself.
DD (Artemiserable):
“Another positive outcome of the Prostestant Reformation is that the mainline Protestant churches have a much more enlightened view on birth control – and condoms as a way to fight AIDS.”
Artemiserable, do you work hard at ignorance, or does this come naturally to you? All Christian churches maintained a condemnation of contraception until the Anglicans broke ranks at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. (The reformation had been around for over 400 years by then). Similarly, HIV/AIDS wasn’t on the minds of the reformers because it wouldn’t pop up for another 450 years.
If what you mean is that the Reformation set up a more enlightened group of Christians who would (half a millennium later) eventually come around to your perspective, then I have the following response.
Contraception is the necessary prerequisite mentality and practice for the embrace of abortion. Before resorting to killing a child, one must first be conditioned to not desire it, to seek ‘protection’. Thus, when the ‘protection’ fails, one has taken the very long step toward killing.
But don’t thank the Protestants for birth control, Artemeiserable. I’m sorry to take that one away from them. In truth, it was Margaret Sanger ( a Catholic), who pushed hard for birth control and abortion. She agitated for BC for decades before the Lambeth Conference.
Know your history and theology before you open your mouth here.
“Oh, vaginal microbicides and female condoms ruin the sacred values of the holy communion”
Well Megan, they haven’t done much for you, now have they?
You’re always above the personal attacks. People like you make me want to encourage women to go cold turkey on the sex with men, Lysistrata style. See, you venerate Mary while forgetting one crucial fact: the Marys of the world bear your children. And if they–heaven forbid!–don’t want to risk conceiving every time they make love to their husbands, they have been “conditioned not to desire it” and are therefore immoral. I’d like to hear what you’d say to your wife if she got pregnant and your family couldn’t financially or emotionally handle another child. Or if she just.didn’t.want.to. What then? Pray tell, how would you “condition her to desire it”?
It holds people to an incredibly high moral standard and punishes them when they can’t attain it.
Wow, wouldn’t wanna hold anyone to a “high moral standard,” now would we? I don’t see any punishment happening, unless the Catholic Church is doling out detentions for being caught with the Pill in your medicine cabinet. How is the Catholic Church punishing women?
I challenge you to read the testimonies of women for whom the concept of “abstinence” is irrelevant because they have little control over their bodies in the first place.
And here it is again. The hatred of the male (or Catholic male, if you prefer). You’re insinuating that the MAN is controlling the woman’s body? Are you insinuating that marital rape in Catholic households is a regular occurrence?
So, it’s your view then, that putting a mind-altering, hormone-altering substance into one’s body, or putting a foreign spermicide into one’s body to try and prevent pregnancy is “controlling one’s body?” No. If women were fully in control of their reproduction (through anything other than abstinence), there would be no “whoops, pregnant!” occurrences while using ANY type of birth control.
And if they–heaven forbid!–don’t want to risk conceiving every time they make love to their husbands, they have been “conditioned not to desire it” and are therefore immoral.
You are aware that unless a woman has sex during the very *small* window of fertile days in her cycle, she will not risk conceiving – right?
I’d like to hear what you’d say to your wife if she got pregnant and your family couldn’t financially or emotionally handle another child. Or if she just.didn’t.want.to. What then? Pray tell, how would you “condition her to desire it”?
To me, that’s kind of like asking, “Under too much stress? That one particular child driving you crazy? Is he really difficult to discipline and is it driving you to the brink of insanity every day? Well, that’s ok, honey. I understand if you feel the need to end his life. I know it’s difficult for you to care for and nurture these children every day, who make your life difficult.”
No need to try and condition anyone to try and desire anything, as far as I’m concerned. You do not kill your children.
The offspring in the womb is no less offspring than the ones already born.
Little Megs,
CUT. THE. CRAP.
You blasphemed the Eucharist, that which is most sacred to real Catholics. So you deserve what you get.
Encourage women to go cold turkey on their men. It’s humerous, because women such as my wife and the regulars here are….
well…
they’re WOMEN, unlike you, a snooty little girl who refuses to leave adolescence behind. Also, women (real women) tend to marry men (real men), unlike the adolescents you’ve fornicated with.
Real women enjoy lovemaking with their men.
You just don’t get men and women, or this thing called marriage, because you don’t want to grow up and accept responsibility for your behavior and its consequences. That’s why you sputter such imbecilities as:
“The Catholic view on birth control is a crazy one.”
which, in its narcissistic and unsubstantiated form, sounds like something out of the mouth of a junior high school student. That’s precisely where you are. As for women bearing men’s children, wrong again little Megs. When a real man and a real woman get married, they understand that the children are a mutual gift and responsibility. Again, something that in your unhealed and unresolved post-abortive state you just can’t fathom.
Since you want to hear what I would say to my wife if we were faced with a child we couldn’t afford or handle, you’re in luck. We have an autistic child, one who was diagnosed with fairly profound autism. We spent the money we had saved on a downpayment for a house on therapies not given by our school board, spent well into the six figure range after that, reconfigured our careers (less money), etc. I told Regina that we would simply trust the God who brought us together and gave us our children, that I don’t need anything more than my family, and that it will all work out. And it has, after almost a decade of hard work and much sacrifice.
That’s what your little narcissistic heart can’t fathom… sacrificial love. It’s why you are a raging post-abortive woman, spitting on the sacred and profaning all that others hold as holy. You don’t get it, and rather than humble yourself and ask for God’s mercy and forgiveness, which are yours for the asking, you mock God, mock what is sacred, mock babies and children, and embrace that which is vile.
Since you obviously can’t read and synthesize a series of posts, Kel, I’ll restate the main points.
1. We are talking about the effects of Catholic relief and NGO aid on global HIV prevention efforts. Therefore, these organizations must be held accountable for the work they do. And open your eyes, gender discrimination is a huge problem for many women across the globe. In many countries male-perpetuated violence is a huge problem–and if you choose to ignore this fact and insist that I “hate men,” then there is clearly something wrong with you. So good, we realize that gender-based discrimination exists and hurts women. On to the next point. In situations where gender-based discrimination exists, women are often less able to advocate for themselves, including in the bedroom. If you read my links, you’d see testimony from women who are never able to say no to their husbands, let alone follow NFP. Women who face the threat of rape every day, or sell sex to support the kids that result from a lack of contraception. Are you starting to get my point, that your parochial morality only serves people who are pretty well-off in the first place?
2. You are aware that unless a woman has sex during the very *small* window of fertile days in her cycle, she will not risk conceiving – right?
Yep, and it’s something we’ve talked about on this blog before. If a woman has tons of kids to care for, or is malnourished, or sick, it’s 100 times harder for her to measure the ebbs and flows of her bodily cycles. But yes, a woman in that kind of situation must be terribly evil or immoral for failing to surmount these obstacles, right? Wake up, Kel: not everybody wants to comceive and pop out babies all the freaking time.
“Wake up, Kel: not everybody wants to conceive and pop out babies all the freaking time.”
Yes little Megs, but you killed your very first one, and you don’t live in some Muslim male bastion of Africa, replete with clitorectomies and all the rest.
Well bully for you, Gerry. I guess all the married couples who contracept aren’t “real” men or “real” women.
And your son’s story is a success story, for sure. My partner works with autistic kids whose families have essentially abandoned them. Many of these families went broke trying to pay for decent treatments and education, and handed their kids over to the state when they turned 18. Or their parents just had too many other mouths to feed, or worked odd shifts that made it impossible to give these children the attention they needed.
Guess these people just didn’t work as hard as you, or maybe God wasn’t feeling particularly merciful that day? I’ll say, it’s probably mighty easier to struggle financially with a PhD than as a truck driver or pork processor on the midnight shift, but let’s not even go there.
Megan, if you get a chance, please read through this letter:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pope+john+paul+11+letter+to+women&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS
1 John 5:16-17
If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
fyi-mortal vs. venial sin
“I’ll say, it’s probably mighty easier to struggle financially with a PhD than as a truck driver or pork processor on the midnight shift, but let’s not even go there.”
Good idea Megs, because you would lose that one too. I belong to support groups and the blue-collar families make even deeper cuts and sacrifices, JOYFULLY. You really DON’T want to know how badly people with half our salary put you to shame.
Can you see anything from that moral pedestal you’re hopping up and down upon?There are families who try and fail to raise special-needs children. Their stories are rarely heard. Their children are shunted off to languish in some forgotten corner of the county as wards of the state. And then there you are, great moralizer, pointing fingers at people who, once again, couldn’t attain your moral standard, while somebody else takes care of their kids.
Praxedes:
Parts of that letter are beautiful. I’d like them to be translated into practice: “But I am convinced that the secret of making speedy progress in achieving full respect for women and their identity involves more than simply the condemnation of discrimination and injustices, necessary though this may be.” Good start. What next?
Why would Megs lose on that one too Dr. Nadal? She’s saying that truck drivers and pork processors would struggle more financially than you and you say blue collar workers make deeper cuts. Sounds like the same thing to me.
Getting ‘loud’ does not enhance your case Dr. Nadal. Being a molecular biologist (albeit one who seemingly betrays his science through his acclamation of creation – where did you study, Biola?) or the other claims you make for yourself doesn’t give you greater wisdom, knowledge or morality than anyone else. You appear with your white coat picture and pontificate like some over-compensating headmaster who believes they have all the answers and is the only one who’s ever right.
What percentage of the world’s population is christian? What percentage are catholic? What percentage of catholics adhere rigidly to doctrinal edicts? What percentage rely on NFP? By the time we get through these and a few more questions it would turn out that you and your beliefs and behaviors are in a miniscule minority.
Good start. What next?
Respect all human life — from conception to natural death.
By the time we get through these and a few more questions it would turn out that you and your beliefs and behaviors are in a minscule minority.
So you would agree with the Catholic faith if it was in the majority?
Megs,
You missed the JOYFULLY part. And as for the moral pedestal, it beats the hell out of the sewer grate you belch your murderous platitudes from. Kill ’em all, right Megs? Don’t give them a chance. Your answer to suffering and despair is death. No heart, no soul, no vision.
Just death.
Thank God the world isn’t like you Megs. Many of us suffer, but we grow through that suffering and perfect ourselves as humans in the process. You’re still engaged in your neurotic mad dash to avoid pain.
Cranium,
Until you learn to speak honestly, don’t bother talking to me. Meg may love abortion, but at least she’s honest. You’re a troll’s troll and not worth the time it takes to respond.
Really? Even many children that you can’t afford? Obviously a large family is a problem for people who don’t have the time or resources to support it.
Just saw this and wanted to note – back in my grandfather’s day, they didn’t have readily available birth control. In America. Whatever did they do? Well, they made ends meet as best they could. When the kids were old enough, they also helped to support their families. Not like today, when we have people with master’s degrees still living at home and paying no rent. My grandfather was the 7th of 10 children, raised during the Depression. My great-grandparents were tough people, my great-grandma especially. So, please don’t act as if this hasn’t been done before. I know families today with 8+ children who do just fine, and their parents do not have white collar jobs.
Sorry, I can’t sleep – not feeling well, and uncomfortable. So, no, Megan, I did not have time to read all the posts on this thread, but thanks for your oh-so-considerate comments, as usual. For the record, I personally do not have an issue with married couples using condoms if they are both in agreement. I am not a member of the Catholic faith. However, I know your great disdain for “the patriarchy,” Megan, or for anything that might resemble a marriage where the husband and wife treat each other well and mutually welcome children into the world. I know, it’s hard to believe that such a “crazy” idea as that could exist, but it does. It isn’t unrealistic. Marriage and monogamy are not unrealistic, either. Neither is abstinence. But to a person who desires sexual gratification without boundaries (which leads to things like abortion, obviously), they might seem that way.
Gonna try again to get some sleep. Goodnight.
So you would agree with the Catholic faith if it was in the majority?
Nice. :D
“However, I know your great disdain for “the patriarchy,” Megan, or for anything that might resemble a marriage where the husband and wife treat each other well and mutually welcome children into the world.”
Well that’s a clever twist, ain’t it? My disdain for a marriage based on mutual respect and love, really? I think you’re missing the point: the point is when that relationship becomes inequitable. This is where your abstiinence-fidelity campaign fails, and you have NOTHING to say about it. While you hold out for everybody to live up to acceptable standards of morality–mind you, without addressing structural changes that create risk for disease, like gender oppression and poverty–women are dying. And all you can do is moralize. Tell me, Kel, what’s more acceptable: for a woman to use a condom at the expense of experiencing greater intimacy with her husband, or go unprotected and risk getting HIV?
I still don’t get what’s so hard about taking & interpreting your fertility signs daily. It seems to me that those who espouse the impracticality of NFP are sorely underestimating their own intelligence.
Do you think by slinging anathemas my way you’ll suddenly force me to kowtow? Not so much. I think you secretly know you’re misguided. Why else would you substitute such condescencion for actual conversation? It’s sad. Even here, surrounded by pro-llife women, you feel the need to diminutize and infantilize, based on nothing more than your vague notions of my life circumstances. You’re slipping, and you’re afraid.
You know that preaching sexual morality doesn’t change hearts or behavior, and that it places the already-disadvantaged at a greater disadvantage. You know bogus science from accurate science. You know that crisis pregnancy centers proselytize to scared women and should be staffed with competent medical professionals and licensed counselors, like any health clinic. And you know you raised your daughter as “right” as possible, but if she makes a mistake someday, or is on the receiving end of someone else’s mistake, you will be hard-pressed to punish her the way you condemn the rest of us morally licentious “sewer” dwellers.
No, Megan. Gerard Nadal isn’t afraid. He’s angry. I wish that he wouldn’t be sarcastic (e.g. “little Megs”). Sometimes I err in the same way, but such personally-directed sarcasm doesn’t help our case. And it’s wrong.
You’re also angry and sarcastic. Are you sure that preaching sexual morality doesn’t change hearts or behaviour? At any rate, the gospel of Jesus Christ certainly does, and that’s what I’m most concerned about. This atheist certainly thinks so: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece And how does “preaching sexual morality place the already-disadvantaged at a greater disadvantage”? Certainly the sexual morality itself is right; that’s what morality is. The “preaching” could possibly be wrong, but that depends on the manner in which it is done.
What do you mean by ”bogus science”? That’s a charge against your fellow “pro-choicers,” isn’t it? They’re the ones who deny the humanity of a human fetus.
You say that crisis pregnancy centers “proselytize.” I wish they would, but I suspect that most strictly limit their mission to dealing with the crisis pregnancy.
You say that “crisis pregnancy centers should be staffed with competent medical professionals and licensed counselors.” What are you saying? That an experienced mother is not fit to offer advice to a new and younger mother? That crisis pregnancy centers regularly invade women’s bodies as the abortion clinics do? And I was not aware that crisis pregnancy centers regularly delivered babies.
You may be right that Mr. Nadal would be “hard-pressed” to punish his daughter if she fornicated or was raped. He certainly seems to love his daughter very much. The immediate thought on such occasions is not to punish but to repent and plead. There is a great sadness that the girl’s life has been wrecked and that, perhaps, the parents were not as watchful as they could have been. Still, there can be redemption. Bathsheba lost her first child, the one that lecherous King David wept for, but God Himself named the second JEDIDIAH, Beloved of Jehovah.
Sylvia: and NFP doesn’t have any nasty side effects like blood clots or risk of heart attack or cancer (breast cancer has been linked to excessive/long term use of contraceptives).
Last time I checked, it doesn’t cost millions to raise a large family….In my extended family (not full extended, just between my brother and sister’s families) clothes have been handed down….like my oldest niece’s clothes got handed down to my other nieces (the clothes that were in good shape anyway). You don’t have to take a trip to Disney World every year. There are other ways to cut expenses…not everyone needs a tv in their bedroom. One of the boys I went to school with K-12 was from a large family (9 kids now, youngest is almost graduating from High school, I think she’s a Junior). My sister used to babysit them and several of them shared a big bedroom/loft like room.
There are ways to raise a large family on a small budget, some people make it work by cutting not essentials.
Don’t hold your breath. The Church hasn’t exactly got into the 24 hour media cycle yet.
I wish that he wouldn’t be sarcastic (e.g. “little Megs”). Sometimes I err in the same way, but such personally-directed sarcasm doesn’t help our case. And it’s wrong.
Not that it matters, but for the record I agree. It makes me exceedingly uncomfortable when people here resort to childish nicknames and condescending taunts rather than actual discussion. Yes, yes, I know – ‘she did it first!’ But taunting and name-calling is the defense mechanism of the weak – those who are right have no use for it. Artemiserable, Little Megs, etc. Calling any pro-choicer who comes here a troll, reflexively. ‘Time to muck out the stalls! Atemiserable is back!’ It is hard to listen to and learn from someone who makes no secret of their disgust and disrespect for you – trust me, I know. Bad behavior doesn’t become good when “good people” employ it for “good reasons” – good people, too often, become diminished by giving in to the temptation to justify bad behavior with an end-goal of greater good. Their message gets lost and the world gets even meaner, and where is the dignity in that?
Megan isn’t belching from a sewer grate or any other such melodrama. She’s sitting in a chair typing on her computer, like the rest of us. Maybe drinking her morning coffee like I am (peppermint mocha, actually – I am treating myself, in this 20 days straight of work, including Thanksgiving, to the most expensive drinks on the menu!). Or if you want to insist on the analogy, and insist that she is snouting around in the sewer while the civilized people sit up in their pedestal world, then is heaping more mud down into that sewer from above really the kindest and most effective method of communication? Is it going to make the world any ‘cleaner?’ She’s telling us things she thinks and feels – she is, as noted, telling us that her answer to suffering and despair is death. What an intimate, revealing thing to share with us! I like Megan quite a bit and I’d love to be her friend in real life, and I appreciate her choosing to share her thoughts with us, even if I don’t always appreciate the manner in which she does it.
I don’t really even know why I’m saying any of this, because I am far from perfect and prefer not to really get involved in arguments at all. I just know that reading some of the unnecessary things people say makes me want to jump in front of whoever is the target and be like, “Hey, she’s a person! Don’t talk to her like that!”
“And I will personally be the person to laugh in your face at calling our policies and cultural practices “efficient.” It’s not true. We have some serious flaws, too.”
Right. Compare New York or London to Kinshasa or Port au-Prince and try to tell me that Western cultural practices are not, by some reasonably objective standard, healthier than those of the Third World (sorry, “developing countries”).
“You seem to be unaware that the Church has the greatest respect for women. Jesus is the only person more venerated in the Church than Mary, the Mother of God. The Church was making women Doctors of the Church in the Middle Ages and women have been spiritual directors of Popes. ”
And there are women who serve in the Iranian Parliament and Cabinet. Pakistan had a duly elected female prime minister, as you’ll also recall. Does that excuse the misogynistic tendencies of those countries?
That is a great analogy. Hopefully, ‘the world’ and the media have the ability to reason and think the concept through. I have my doubts! They are too busy paying attention to ‘Dancing with the Stars,’ etc… I wonder if people have the ability to think and reason that deeply anymore…?
Vita! Congratulations! That is so wonderful and exciting!
CT– I actually agree with you but how hypocritical would it be for me to judge couples who use condoms when I also use them? I don’t want to, its not my choice (theres that magic word!) but my husband insists.
Megan: “People like you make me want to encourage women to go cold turkey on the sex with men, Lysistrata style.”
Don’t bother me none…
And there are women who serve in the Iranian Parliament and Cabinet. Pakistan had a duly elected female prime minister, as you’ll also recall. Does that excuse the misogynistic tendencies of those countries?
The Church is not a government first of all and second the Church does not force women to become pregnant. You forget about free will – you can say the Church forces women (or words to that effect) until you are blue in the face but it still wont make it true. The Church venerates women, and the natural state of pregnancy and motherhood, but does not require it of women.
Again, your lack of knowledge is simply mind-blowing. If you ask people who know and practice the Faith they dont have a problem with the teaching on contraception. Maybe you should read up on the matter in the Catechism.
Tell me, Kel, what’s more acceptable: for a woman to use a condom at the expense of experiencing greater intimacy with her husband, or go unprotected and risk getting HIV?
If we’re talking married couples here, then I would fall on the side of condom use. I am not Catholic and I do not oppose condom use in cases where husband and wife are in agreement.
“The Church is not a government first of all and second the Church does not force women to become pregnant.”
Actually, it is, as the Vatican is recognized as a sovereign country. Even if that wasn’t the case, its bureaucratic structure is most certainly comparable to that of a civil government–the Pope, in his official capacity as both head of state and head of government, is the chief executive; under him are lower-ranking executive officers, as well as legislative bodies that deal with drafting Church doctrine.
“You forget about free will – you can say the Church forces women (or words to that effect) until you are blue in the face but it still wont make it true. The Church venerates women, and the natural state of pregnancy and motherhood, but does not require it of women.”
No, the Church does not “force” women to become pregnant (and I never made that claim). What the Church instead is guilty of doing is placing Catholic women in a situation where their own personal interests (indulging in the physical and mental benefits of sexual relations without having children they can’t or won’t take care of) are at cross-purposes with Catholic teaching.
Sydney: hydrogenated vegetable oil weakens condoms ;)
Bobby Bambino @10:31: You are a true man. Well done.
Jon @7:39: amen.
Megan: So women in countries where oppression based on gender is common can’t convince the men that have sex with them not to do so on fertile days, but these men let them use a condom or use a condom themselves? I find that difficult to believe. How is it that if pro-lifers advocate any measure for US women to prevent rape, they’re rape apologist, but when we advocate teaching respect for women in other countries, we’re unreasonable and the correct solution is not to teach men how to love women, but to get the women to use condoms? Women deserve better. And often for these women, children are their greatest wealth and their only wealth. It’s pretty hard to conceive using condoms. If one does, one has not prevented disease, either. So if a woman wants children to take care of her in her old age, to be a comfort in her life, but can’t trust her man to have been faithful, how will a condom help? It sure doesn’t sound like easy access to condoms is helping Sydney.
I am grateful that my husband doesn’t want to use birth control and prevent us from having children, because I for one really enjoy sex, quite possibly more than he does. If he didn’t want to have sex with me, because he did not want more children, I think it would be harder for me than him. So yes, it can be tough being a woman.
Jon, Alexandra,
I’m not angry. Far from it. And while I’m sorry that my manner of responding to trolls may not be to your liking, I have developed a manner of dealing with people who mock what is sacred to others, while expecting the rules of civility to apply unilaterally. They get treated only as well as they treat others.
I read blogs for years before ever jumping in as a commenter. What I noticed was that those who fling excrement all over the Catholic Church are the first to collapse in a puddle of tears when treated in the same manner. I prefer civil discourse, and have it with people who are as far from my pro-life beliefs as they can be. But I simply do not allow myself to be bound by people who get off on mocking the Eucharist, or denigrating our beliefs and clergy.
See for yourselves how they wail in indignation when treated in kind. It’s a lesson in growing up. If little Megs wished to discuss the particulars of Humanae Vitae in a serious, sober, and adult manner, wonderful. I welcome it. If she simply intends to fling excrement, then I’ll call her on it and treat her with the level of regard that comes with such behavior.
Joan,
You must be hanging out with Catholics who don’t follow the Church’s teachings as closely as the ones I know (in person and some online as well).
My husband and I, my 5 sisters and their husbands, my younger brother and his wife, my parents, a bunch of NFP teachers who are Catholic and several I know in various parishes ALL take the Catholic Church’s stance on artificial contraception SERIOUSLY. This is the reason we (and them) use Natural Family Planning (NFP).
The media saying the Pope condones usage of condoms is a load of horse huey. The Catholic Church stance is that we don’t use condoms and what Dr. Nadal posted about what he said in response sounds right. If he was talking about people who are NOT Catholic that are prostitutes who are on the road to a moral awakening of their consciousness, that’s one thing, but he wasn’t saying that condoms were okay in any situation.
Yes, there are Catholics who DON’T take the Catholic Church’s stance on artificial contraception seriously, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any who do (as Dr. Nadal and myself have made clear).
Here’s an article talking about what the Pope was reallying saying:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-advocates-right-sexuality-not-condom-use-in-fight-against-hiv/
Based on that article and one by Associated Press, it does NOT look like he’s CONDONING the use of condoms or even encouraging them, he’s saying that those those who are redeveloping their consciousness.
And I want to address all those who are Catholic:
We Catholics need to remember that we have a responsbility as Catholics to know and to adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches. This means, we’re not supposed to be using artificial contraception at all. That we’re not to condone, encourage or support abortion at all.
Kristen November 22nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
“The Church is not a government first of all…”
=============================================================
Ever heard the old adage, ‘Don’t discuss politics and religion’.
The hidden truth behind that metaphor is that there is little difference between the two and if you discuss them sufficiently sooner or later that truth will overtake you.
If by ‘The Church’ you mean the institutionlized ‘christian religion’ in general, then you are surely wrong.
If by ‘The Church’ you are referring to specific denomination, you are still wrong. Every ’christian’ denomination I have ever encountered has it’s own set of rules and regulation that sets them apart from the other ‘christian denominations’.
Jesus told us to seek first the kingdom of GOD.
A kingdom by defintion is a ‘government’ that has the power, dominion and authority to rule and reign.
The first priority of goverment is to protect human life and the second is to provide liberty to the citizens.
Jesus condensed all the rules and regulations down to just two:
1. Love GOD.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself
Then he dialed it in a little more precisely: Love one another as I have loved you.
If the government that governs best, governs least, then the kingdom of GOD is the best government that will ever be.
Hint: The government of GOD is in HOLY SPIRIT.
The Church isn’t a goverment. The property on which the Vatican rests is it’s own country and self governs, but that does not translate to governing the diocese around the world. The diocese of New York, for example, doesn’t need a Swiss Guard. It’s such a shame that people who know so little about the Catholic Church keep posting incorrect information. I thought someone was all about pounding the facts. What hypocrites some of the commenters are.
sydney:
your post makes me sad. in a previous thread about NFP megan pointed out various situations saying “wold NFP be the appropriate method of birth control if…” and one of these if there was discord between the couple about wanting to or not wanting to have a child. i responded that i wasn’t sure what she was trying to say, since using condoms etc would allow the sex to continue, but would also allow the conflict to continue.
Your post demonstrates this.
If you don’t mind i am going to pray for your husband that he has a conversion of heart. hearing you say things like “i hate condoms but my husband insists” makes my heart ache. As a woman, you do not deserve to be treated this way. your marital embrace deserves to be both freely given and completely given–fertility included. i will pray for you too, that you will gain the courage to respond to your husband and allow your voice to be heard.
You are simply wrong. The Church is a government because it is the civil authority in the Vatican state. That fact alone makes it a government, period. But you know what? It doesn’t even matter if the Church is or is not technically a “government”. I only brought up the examples of Iran and Pakistan to show that an authoritative body–whether secular or ecclesiastical, it doesn’t really matter–can put women in places of authority while still promoting misogynistic policies.
If my husband was HIV positive or had already developed AIDs, and he asked me to have sex, without a condom, I’d smack him! No, Megan, not as a method of foreplay, no. I’d smack him right in the kisser. How dare he try to endanger my life?! I don’t care if he got his exposure innocently from a blood transfusion, or sharing needles with the local junkies. In a relationship where one human is expected to CARE about the other human, putting love and care aside for some risky instant gratification is a huge turn off. After I smacked him, he’d be found with his pillow and blanket, outside, in the yard, in the dog’s house…
Didn’t Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity teach Natural Family Planning to women in India? I seem to remember reading that.
Was there ever an answer to the question about
“…one of these if there was discord between the couple about wanting to or not wanting to have a child.” ?
Because there is a document from the Catholic Church called the Vademecum for Confessors from 1907
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html
and it states:
“13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion). ”
Thus, it lays out criteria for when a Catholic may participate in teh conjugal act when their spouse insists on using contraception. Note that the Catholic partner may NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE by the one doing the contracepting. But there are situations in which teh Catholic spouse may tolerate their partner’s use of contraception as outlined above.
Megan:
“. What about in instances where there is incredible gender disparity? Where a young teen is married off to an older man, a situation in which she may not want to potentially conceive every time she has sex, but has no say in protecting herself? Or what about if a woman’s family falls on hard times and she must provide for them, and sex work is the most viable option? Or what if market forces contribute to the need for a large migrant worker population, where men are away from their wives for months and months on end and seek the comfort of other women?”
my general comment to your various scenarios is that they are actually not at all in conflict with what Catholics teach about contraception. the problem with contraception is that it allows men and women to use each other for pleasure. it allows the gift of sex to be profaned and adulterated by lust and self-seeking. it allows one to be used at the extent of the other. in all of your proposed scnarios, lust and the profanity of sex are also taking place. a man who truly respected women would not force her to have sex with him against her will. a man who truly loved his wife would not “seek the comfort” of other women regardless of how long he was away from her. give me a break. give men some credit, would you? as if it’s not impossible to abstain from sex while you are away from your spouse. and before you tell me that i’m “imposing my morals’ or “holding people to such a high moral standard”, just tell me why… why you honestly think it’s impossible or why it’s too high of a moral standard. and, sorry, “sex feels good and sometimes people just want to do it’ is not a sufficient answer. it does not explain why it is impossible for these people to adhere to something. it might explain why they don’t want to; it does not explain why they can’t.
and what about these women who just absolutely must engage in sex work? do you think all men and women who steal for their families should be off the hook for breaking the law because of these extenuating circumstances? if so why and if not, why not? in either case, Megan, i hope you realize that, in your decision, you are in fact imposing a moral standard on another person’s decision and you expect that, if that standard is broken, there will be consequences.
sydney m:
”
I understand that condoms have been hijacked by the sexually immoral but I don’t think condoms in and of themselves are bad. I refuse to use hormonal birth control and my husband does not think we are financially able to have another child right now so the logical compromise is condoms. And my husband is Catholic (though not practicing at all). But we are married and St. Paul talks about not withholding yourself sexually from your spouse if at all possible. Sex is an important part of marriage. Its not the end all be all but it is important!”
Sydney, examine carefully what st. Paul is actually saying. he doesn’t say, “don’t withhold yourself from sex if at all possible’. no, he says sometimes it might be necessary to withhold yourself from sex for the purposes of fasting or prayer. you say that your husband is a nonpracticing Catholic. perhaps it would be prudent to follow St. Paul’s advice and to invite your husband into this period of fasting and prayer with you so that the two of you might seek resolution for your conflicts about whether to or not to have another child and whether to or not to use contraception. don’t discount the pricking of your conscience surrounding this issue.
i’m also curious why you don’t think condoms in and of themselves are bad.
love and prayers!
I was raised Baptist and we don’t have teachings against birth control. I don’t have a problem with a married couple contracepting with non-abortive measures. So I just don’t have a moral problem with condoms.
I would have to say it is the biggest stress in my marriage. It is the issue we fight about. It is causing resentment on my part. I am trying to give my trial to God and not allow bitterness to fester over it but its hard. I feel he is not living up to the agreement we came to before marriage. We just never discussed birth control. But I always made it clear before we married I wanted a lot of kids. And it angers me that I know if my birth control hadn’t failed 4 years ago we wouldn’t be parents even now. My husband has this idea that we must have thousands upon thousands of dollars in the bank and a big house and be able to buy every material thing in the world to be good parents and i know that just isn’t so. And if we wait till we have “enough” money Ill be in menopause!
I definitely have a higher sex drive than my husband. I always have. But I will say in the last year as we fight the battle of the baby I definitely desire it less and less. I do feel it is a rejection of my fertility and I resent that. I do feel he is withholding something from me that should be mine during the sexual act (his semen) and I resent that. not to be graphic but its how I feel.
I feel better venting! There is no one I can really talk to about this.
Sidney M,
I hope you know that I was not judging you. Just clarifying the St. Paul reference you made. We all have areas in which we struggle for various reasons. I just didn’t want the true teaching confused.
All the best!
The men in marriage are supposed to treat their wives as Christ treats the Church, His bride. The men are supposed to love their wives beyond measure. It’s so unfortunate that some men, indeed some from certain cultures, are inculturated to treat their women with disrespect and harm.
And yes – NFP was taught quite successfully in other cultures – in India, in Africa and even to nuns who wanted to understand their bodies better (not for sex, mind you – but having a close bond with one’s body allows one to detect disease earlier – as in my case). And in Uganda – the ABC method – abstinence first, be faithful, and only lastly condoms was the ONLY method to reduce AIDS transmissions in that country. Unfortunately, the US and the UN frequently tie foreign aid to contraceptive use and force it down a country’s throat. And then then big push for condom use, contraception and abortion instead of clean water, food, education and shelter.
Backwards. But then the elite in the West have been trying to hold down the populations of other countries for a long time. Colonialism of a different sort. Still tragic, still misguided, still does not protect the dignity of every human in every circumstance.
Sidney M, just read your last post. I didn’t read all the posts (busy day), but I wonder if you’ve tried spiritual counseling. It has helped a good friend of mine and her husband through a similar issue on which they were locked in seemingly unbreakable disagreement. I’ll pray for you and your husband!
Sydney, I really feel for you. I’m so sorry. :( Have you discussed these feelings with your husband, just like you wrote them here? You really should, if you haven’t. And yes, the bitterness can ruin your marriage. You need to talk to him and vent this TO HIM, or write him a letter if you can’t say it to his face. Get counseling, if needed. This is a very serious and real issue. And I will be praying that his heart is open to receiving what you have to say. *Hugs* to you.
Please pray for my fiancee and I. We’re trying to find a way to have my tubal ligation reversed so that we can have children after our wedding next year, but it’s expensive and will require a lot of travel and financial juggling. It’s something we both want desperately.
Will do, X.
Sydney – you are in my prayers also.
When my husband first came to me with NFP, I was stunned – and thought he was suffering so. Despite my fear and trepidation, I loved him enough to do NFP even though I was scared. And to be ‘extra sure’ we added on a day or two until we were completely sure to be in phase III. In the end – love won out and I embraced it all – and what a blessing.
Please know that you can dedicate your sorrow to whatever Christ wants it to be dedicated, and your spiritual sorrow can be turned into great healing for others. Nothing is ever wasted. Give your permission, and your sorrow has supernatural power thru Christ. And praying together helps also. Spiritual counseling is a good idea. And if you have not seen ‘Prove it God, and He did’ by Patty Schneier of One More Soul, take a look.
My girlfriend is in the same position. She grieves, for sure. You are both in my prayers.
Sydney – also – how lean are you living? If you can lead a simple life – the kids don’t need much – just parents that love them. Even with modest means, kids turn out great. You may want to look at what gives your husband solace and comfort and find out what he is really looking for. So many men feel that they have success if they haven ‘x’ – and yet we know it’s not the car, house, vacation or any other such thing that gives peace.
Just a thought. I know that with this economy our families are under tremendous pressure. And our men want it all to turn out right….
Good luck Xalisae – we are with you!
Sydney,
You will be in my prayers as well. My husband and I (we are Catholic) struggled with this for years also. It’s an area in which so many couples are not unified. Have you read Humane Vitae?
Sydney,
Talk to St. Jude and St. Monica. St. Jude is the patron of impossible situations and St. Monica prayed many years for St. Augustine (her son) conversion–if anyone understands frustrations about someone you love going the wrong direction, it’s her.
Also, I recommend getting Christopher West’s talk for men and for women (He has one for men and one for women). You can listen/watch them together and hopefully regain a mutual respect for each other. Your husband–whether practicing or not–needs to respect that your fertility is part of the marital sexual act. (http://www.christopherwest.com ).
God bless and I hope things get better for you!
Xal–prayers going up for your reversal!
Sydney and X, praying for you as well. Jesus has big plans for you both!
“And the correct solution is not to teach men how to love women, but to get the women to use condoms? Women deserve better.”
Sigh. You all need to brush up on global HIV prevention efforts, because these comments betray an extreme ignorance of what’s happening on the ground. Obviously men and women shouldn’t put their spouses at risk by cheating on them. Obviously no human being should ever experience intimate partner violence, or have their physical integrity disrespected. No it isn’t enough to just “throw condoms” at people. Promoting contraception is one aspect of efforts to change behavioral, economic, social and political landscapes to affirm human dignity. In places of the world where women regularly engage in sex work, HIV prevention is about figuring out the social and economic forces that conspire against these women. HIV prevention is about sustaining the local job market so people don’t have to travel hundreds of miles away to find jobs, potentially tearing families apart. And HIV prevention is also about treatment, about linking infected individuals to resources they need to protect themselves and their partners.
And that’s the crux of it: protection is prevention is love. A husband will respect his wife’s desire to have sex when she wants to, to have children when she wants to, to help her space her births appropriately. You’re absolutely right, YCW: respect is the highest goal. And you’re right, though: how to make men more amenable to contraceptive use? There needs to be a wholesale change in gender disparities, including the disparity that renders women helpless in making decisions about their bodies and their lives. Women should be able to make the decision to use contraception, or not to use it, for that matter.
This website offers some great resources:
http://www.genderhealth.org/files/uploads/change/publications/womancenteredapproach.pdf
Editorial on the pitfalls of natural family planning in under-resourced settings with high disease prevalence:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/natural-family-planning-african-women-deserve-better-contraceptive-method
Fair enough, Gerard – I’m not telling you what to do. But to someone who doesn’t share your point of view (me!) you make it look about as appealing as Megan makes hers seem.
If little Megs wished to discuss the particulars of Humanae Vitae in a serious, sober, and adult manner, wonderful.
If she did, then she probably wouldn’t need your shining example of human decency to convince her to try.
Dr. Nadal, I can’t help but get the impression that you are a bit too used to being granted an almost infallible level of status by accolytes and sycophants. Have I burst your bubble by not automatically taking your word as gospel?
I do speak honestly. Just because you don’t like what I say or disagree with it does not make it dishonest. I ask nearly as many questions of you as I make statements to you. I can’t help it if you can’t answer those questions adequately.
Learn to deal with people disputing your claims, it’ll make you stronger.
Cranium,
I engage dissenting opinion all the time. However, with you, when I present information, you turn around and state that I didn’t present what I just presented. So, you may run free with whatever you would like to say, but chasing down your falsehoods is a waste of precious time.
I’ve debated long and hard here at Jill’s with plenty of links to facts. But Jesus cautions us not to throw our pearls before swine, who will trample them underfoot. People who lie and distort what is said in discussion fall into that category.
And I have no acolytes. They don’t exist here. You must be thinking of the pro-abort herd with their hackneyed responses.
Alexandra,
Well, it takes all kinds, I suppose. I just don’t accept the denigration of my Church as the starting point for discussion. It’s a non-starter with me, and I treat it as such. In the world of diplomacy, starting a conversation by mocking what is holy to the person on the other side of the table is tantamount to a declaration of war.
It is a misguided notion of humility that suggests that Christians must stand still for this sort of thing. Such thinking betrays a lack of understanding of the scriptures where Jesus dealt harshly with the trolls of his day, as well as the prophets with the trolls of their day, or the Apostles with the trolls of their day.
I’m not talking about Christianity and Christians being held to some higher standard. I’m simply talking about normal human discourse on any subject. To be honest, if Christianity requires such sarcastic and degrading defense then I’m glad I’m not called to defend it.
Histrionics like those of some commenters here are no more a declaration of war than a toddler’s tantrums are “fighting words.” Some lessons must be learned by showing, not telling. “Be moral and respectful like me, you gutter-dwelling child!” is unlikely to teach a child anything except to scream louder with his next breath. Just my two cents, from someone who has been there and has never been persuaded by arguments like yours.
I don’t state that you haven’t presented what you’ve presented. I state that what you have presented is of no value because it is outdated, misrepresentative or just plain refuted. There is a difference. Even your claimed ‘current’ pieces are rehashes of old material which have still been refuted. You just don’t seem to be able to accept that what you believe may not be true. Why the need to hide behind scriptural quotes?
“Jesus dealt harshly with the trolls of his day, as well as the prophets with the trolls of their day, or the Apostles with the trolls of their day” – and what, do you now see yourself as the anointed one to deal with present day, digital ‘trolls’?
Please. If someone uses Christian principles or teachings to affect public policy, then critiquing these strategies is far from senseless “denigration.” If a world leader such as the Pope attempts to sway public opinion on matters of public health, then as far as I’m concerned, feedback is warranted. The same goes for any other religion, but there aren’t any representatives of Islam or Judaism here right now to debate with, so there you go.
There you go Cranium. You continue to state that I present outdated papers when several are from last year and this year. My final words to you who have once again proven incapable of the truth.
”I’m simply talking about normal human discourse on any subject. To be honest, if Christianity requires such sarcastic and degrading defense then I’m glad I’m not called to defend it.”
Alexandra,
Spare us your phoney nonsense.
“Just my two cents, from someone who has been there and has never been persuaded by arguments like yours.”
Alexandra,
You’ve never been persuaded by any argument. You been debating MK for years now, she treats you like a princess and you’re still an atheist pro-abort.
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
@joan… I guess you don’t know a single one, because here’s another one popping up! I lost count a dozen screens ago!
and I don’t teach it to kids, I teach it to adults! and it’s very well recieved… but then, you might want to take in the whole teaching and the meaning behind it!
Ah, failure to read Dr. Nadal? How does “Even your claimed ‘current’ pieces are rehashes of old material which have still been refuted.” relate to “You continue to state that I present outdated papers when several are from last year and this year’. Can you not comprehend the difference? It would appear that you cannot accept the truth.
I still find your approach to be bombastic and self-justifying and your treatment of others to be defensively derogatory, but that’s just my opinion. I have no empirical evidence to support it, its a matter of nuance and that dreaded ‘tone’ (although some of it is pretty blatant) :-)
“I don’t know a single other Catholic who takes the Church’s stance on contraception and birth control seriously.”
I do. :)
It’s wonderful that we have lives so wealthy in this country to not be too concerned with how many children we have. Here is the reality when I do a mission trip to 3 countries I visit annually (where I provide GYN surgery) all of whom have some connection to the Catholic church
1) Nicaragua – women beg for sterilization. BEG. They are often in their late 20’s and already have 6-8 children for whom they cannot provide. I cannot post a sterilization case so she must have some other indication for surgery. Then it depends if I have a OR tech willing to turn a blind eye. Sometimes they know enough to make up a story that would be an indication for a hysterectomy since there is only a 50/50 chance I could get away with doing a tubal ligation. This, of course, is a more risky procedure and takes up much more OR time – thereby taking away resources that could be used for other patients.
2) Honduras – women beg for sterilization. BEG. The hospital will absolutely not permit any discussion of any type of contraception other than natural family planning – which these women have all heard before. Many do not have the option to say ‘no.’ I can’t fix their marriage, but I could keep their already malnourished children from having to share the already depleted family resources with another child. Except I am not permitted. Unless I can find a reason to do a hysterectomy.
3) Bolivia – women don’t have to beg. In a hospital run by nuns, adjacent to an orphanage, run by the same sisters, contraception is discussed as a way for the couple to love & care for the family they have. Through running the orphanage the sisters know the toll of poverty & families that cannot be limited at the parents’ choosing. i can do tubal ligations, or vasectomies, be done with each case in 15 minutes and see more patients. My relationships with the patients aren’t confused by them trying to say what they need to to get the surgery they so desperately want. When I asked why they practice so differently from their church’s teaching the mother replied, ‘because I live in the real world. One more starving child benefits no one.’
Be ‘quiverfull’ here if it suits you – the poorest family in the US lives better than most in the rest of the world – but when religious dogma perpetuates poverty & interferes wtih providing basic medical care it’s a problem. Of course large families are cherished by some, but dig deeper and there are desperate women who are tired of putting the children they have to bed hungry and do not want another in the same situation.
Kylie, stop being so ridiculously elitist would you? You are not talking to a bunch of millionaires here. At least I’m not. My husband and I were always a little poor but we have both lost our jobs in the past year and now we are REALLY poor. Like scrounging for change in the couch to buy milk, no lie. The last time I was this financially stressed I was a broke college kid. It really sucks. But it does not justify murdering a child. And despite our financial situation I LONG for another baby. LONG. Intensely. And I am most definitely not a quiverfull. And I’m not Catholic.
For Chrissakes Sydney, did you read what Kylie said? THESE.WOMEN.DO.NOT.WANT.ANY.MORE.BABIES. They want to use contraception. They can’t access it. Your situation is not comparable to theirs. You live in America. You have a college degree. Huge differences. Stop make generalizations for everybody based on how you want to live your life.
I am not pro-choice. I did not mention abortion once. I am very pro-contraception and have been devastated to see towns where the average height is decreasing from malnutrition and watch children be abandoned hoping they will survive until someone finds them. Or, when they’re older, sent (alone) to the US because the parents think some American will adopt them (see ‘Which Way Home?’)
There is no arguing the point that the poorest American lives better than the average Bolivian or Nicaraguan or Honduran. In general we have a limited concept of how most of the world lives. The fact that you mentioned a ‘couch’ proves the point.
If the women you’re talking about really “don’t have the option to say ‘no,'” then it is a rape situation. Someone needs to intervene. (No, I don’t mean you, necessarily…)
I find your comment to be extraordinarily naive bmmg39. Do you realise how recently laws allowing for rape in marriage to be classed as a crime were introduced in many ‘modern, western’ nations? Do you really think these women would succeed with a rape claim against their husbands in a less enlightened country which is almost a catholic theocracy?
Apart from that, what if she really loves her husband and does want to have sex but not get pregnant or have more children. Ah yes, that’s not allowed is it.
Some quotes from Cranium:
“I still find your approach to be bombastic and self-justifying and your treatment of others to be defensively derogatory, but that’s just my opinion.”
“I find your comment to be extraordinarily naive bmmg39.”
“because it {the Catholic Church} is rich beyond parallel, has odious political interventionist control, continues to perpetrate its archaic, misogynistic views and works very very hard at spreading it’s ‘message’. ”
Typical pro-abort. Accusing others of that for which he/she is guilty. Bonbastic is all the skull has. Never a substantive argument.
Megan, please don’t take the Lord’s name in vain when you have your hissy fit. Thanks. Its extremely offensive.
Secondly, no I don’t have a college degree. I went to college and had to leave several years in for family reasons. I’ve been trying to go back ever since. So stop pretending you know me. you don’t, dear. I live in America so I must be freaking rich, right? I don’t take issue with non-hormonal contraception. I take issue with the mentality that having children is a BURDEN and that they are a HINDERANCE to pursuing your dreams or having a good life. Its nonsense, its offensive and it leads to the abortion mentality we see. Children are NOT the problem!
Sydney. Uncontrolled fertility is a burden for some women. You live in the United States, and whatever you have access to is 1,000 better than women in, say, the Congo. For your family, having another baby might mean doing some rearranging. For others women, getting pregnant means considering the family’s potential inability to adequately feed, clothe, and provide medical care for another child. Getting pregnant means potentially resigning oneself to a death sentence, since maternal death rates in that region are so high. Family planning is just common public health sense.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/notes-from-a-young-american-in-congo-contraception/
Kylie, are you saying that while outside the U.S. you perform hysterectomies that are not truly indicated by the medical condition, just as a way to provide the end result of sterilization?
Wow. I find it amazing to think that a doctor would remove a woman’s uterus not because her reproductive system is diseased, but because she is the repeated victim of men (husbands or otherwise) who do not want to exercise any control over themselves for her sake and the sake of the family. How does this improve the woman’s situation of being taken advantage of by men sexually? You have simply made these women more available as targets for abuse by their own husbands.
A truly human way to begin to transform these bad situations would be to teach the men that being real men must involve practicing the virtue of chastity for the sake of their wives, their families, and for their own integrity as men. They should be taught that real love for a woman (and genuine self-respect and self-possession as a man) means that sex and real love for her must always go together.
By your malpractice (doing surgeries that are not medically indicated) you are simply enabling the abusive men in these cultures to continue right on abusing, and making it even less likely that the married women in these situations will ever be treated with genuine love and respect by their spouses. Nice work.
Sydney,
I never would have known that you had your college education interrupted. You speak with a commanding eloquence that is just as noteworthy for its informative content! I second your comments to Megan.
There’s one major difference though Dr. Nadal. I won’t stop you reading your bible or going to church. I won’t stop you from only having sex within a marriage. I won’t stop you using NFP if that’s what you wish. Heck, I won’t even lobby the government to ban religion.
But you would have others not have sex outside of marriage. You would stop people having abortions if that’s what they choose. Some of your cohorts believe that the constitution should reflect scripture. Some even want homosexuality outlawed again.
I’m not the one telling others how they should live and behave. Nor do I claim to have some extraordinary ‘power’ justifying attempts to do so.
Did you actually read the reason behind why I said ‘I found’ bmmg39’s comments naive? Did you? Do you disagree with them? If so, why?
You think you have some right to tell others whats what. I don’t do so. I just say don’t try to tell me whats what.
That’s the difference. Yours is the same old tired, jaundiced argument.
What’s ‘bonbastic’? ;-)
“By your malpractice (doing surgeries that are not medically indicated) you are simply enabling the abusive men in these cultures to continue right on abusing, and making it even less likely that the married women in these situations will ever be treated with genuine love and respect by their spouses. Nice work.”
Time and time again: that is what people have been working on for ages. Gender equality. Respect. The change doesn’t happen overnight. In the meantime, while we wait for men to begin respecting women, women are still subject to abuse, and that abuse is compounded by having more kids they simply cannot take care of.
In regard to the awful situation Kylie describes above in Honduras, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, I wonder if anyone has followed-up with the women she sterilized by hysterectomies, to see if their lives have been much improved by this radical surgical approach to a social-moral problem?
Have they become more respected by men? Have they become less sexually abused? Have they become treated less like objects and more like whole persons???
My bet is that these surgeries have made these women’s lives worse. They have been physically rendered into mere things to serve for the pleasures of men. How horrible. Kylie has turned them into objects that are more easily and conveniently used for enjoyment at the whims of men.
Um Scott, why are they any more objectivied post-surgey? Because they can’t have any more kids–does the inability to procreate make these women “mere things”? And have you overlooked the fact that they do not want any more children??
OK, last comment before I’m off for the night. Yes, I have had the opportunity (gift!) to work for many years in the same communities in these countries – I spend approximately 6 months a year doing surgical mission work divided between the three. I would point out the hysterectomy for *soft* indications goes on here today and was very common (and sometimes encouraged) in the Catholic hospitals where I rotated many years ago. I try very hard not to perform any completely unnecessary hysterectomies, but at some point the patient figures out what she needs to say and I usually err on the side of believing the patient. And then, at some point, unwanted fertility, mild pelvic organ prolapse, history of abnormal pap smear becomes enough in a country where care is sporadic and who knows when the next physician will come along (although I hope to continue we never know, do we?).
Is there a potential selection bias in what I see – in that patients who are happy using natural family planning or welcoming as many children as nature gives them don’t come to the surgical clinic? Of course! But there are many, many who are not in this situation. And, Scott, absolutely, I have patients (some with their husbands)who return or with whom I have dinner every year to thank me. Are they in poverty? Yes. Do some still have children being raised by the nuns? Yes. But at least that number hasn’t been added to and the resources the family has can be directed towards keeping those children clothed, fed and in school – without resorting to abortion.
Returning here every year I am overwhelmed by the wealth of our country. That our children all can go to school. I’m shocked that people don’t smell of smoke from their open fire in their house. Water is so abundant we can opt not to drink our perfectly fine agua from the tap. I see children at a free clinic and marvel that they are well nourished and don’t have parasites. I have seen a couple of dirt floors in my work with the health department but they are pretty few and far between, instead of the standard.
I have never considered that doing a tubal ligation or hysterectomy (whatever the indication) turns a woman into a sex object for her husband. Is that what happens at menopause? Or after pelvic radiation if she no longer ovulates? Or if i need to remove both ovaries because of concerning masses? Choosing to have no more children is often the first decision my patients have made for themselves in a very long time.
I must say, I have never felt so attacked when I only commented on the thread related to contraception here without attacking anyone – starting from the assumption that I was promoting abortion and elitist (my family in Appalachia would giggle at that one). A co-worker left this site up. It has been enlightening for me to read and I’ll leave it at that.
Brilliant, brilliant post Scott. All that hysterectomy does is provide a solution to one part of the problem- it does not at all cut to the real issue, the real problem and in fact, worsens that problem.
I’m glad I work for you! :)
“Time and time again: that is what people have been working on for ages. Gender equality. Respect. The change doesn’t happen overnight. ”
Here is certainly someplace we can agree, Megan. There is no simple, quick solution though. It will take a lot of work.
You’ve never been persuaded by any argument. You been debating MK for years now, she treats you like a princess and you’re still an atheist pro-abort.
Jasper, you’ve been talking to me for years now, and yet you still deliberately “forget” the things I have quite honestly told you whenever you feel like lashing out and having a go at me.
For the record I have not been “debating” MK for years. I have developed an enriching and informative friendship with MK, in which she treats me as she treats anyone else – with kindness, compassion, and respect. I have been persuaded by many arguments over the years I’ve been here. I am not and have never been an atheist, and I am not a pro-abort. But you knew all that already. If you have yet again forgotten I will yet again link you back for a little memory refresher.
Megan - or Kylie – how do you feel about the women-only subway cars some countries or cities have?
On the one hand, they allow women a short-term solution to the large-scale problem of men groping and harassing on the morning commute. On the other hand, they are a band-aid solution to a systemic problem, and on top of that they are a solution that requires the woman to change her behavior to avoid harassment rather than requiring the man to simply not harass.
Do you think that women-only train cars make things better for women by allowing them to opt out of the oppressive environment they travel in, or simply allow men to continue to treat women badly and perpetuate a world in which the burden to prevent abuse is on the abused rather than the abuser?
You would describe yourself as agnostic, right Alexandra? If that is correct, is that a “I’m not sure if God(s) exists” agnostic or a “we can’t know if God(s) exist” agnostic?
Good grief. Some outstanding posts (Scott, Sydney, Dr. Nadal, and many others), in the midst of a virtual river of troll poo. Where’s Hercules when you need him to clean out this particular wing of the Augean Stables?
That is correct, Bobby! I am simply not sure if there is a god, and I don’t necessarily believe that anyone can KNOW something like that but maybe people can; but by and large I consider it irrelevant to the topics I am more likely to discuss in public – my feelings on whether there is a god fluctuate but they rarely change my actual opinions about objective topics, which I try to base on intellectual/logical reasoning. Naturally if there is a god then intellectual/logical reasoning would still be solid ground to be on, so I don’t mean for that to sound like a condescending jab – just an explanation for why I remain unconcerned with the existence of a god even on emotionally/morally charged subjects like abortion.
When the topic directly comes up, unrelated to other issues, I don’t shy away from discussing it, although looking back on old topics, I might not be quite so candid as I have been here in the past, as in the very early parts of the never-ending purgatory thread: https://www.jillstanek.com/weekend-question/weekend-questio-33.html But mostly I just don’t find it relevant to most of the things we talk about here.
And here you go, jasper, one more time: 2secondsfaster.com/2009/05/saturday-mixer-xiv/
Kylie, I didn’t mean to attack you so I’m sorry that you felt that way. I must say, even though I’m pro-life, I often do not like the tone with which some pro-lifers try to engage in dialogue with those of opposing views on the internet. It’s part of the reason I don’t engage in this more often.
I’m at work and don’t have the leisure right now to respond in more length. I’ll try this evening to write a longer response.
But to just say one thing too briefly, when a woman’s body is still whole and functioning as a woman’s body was designed to do by God (regular cycles of fertility/infertility), there is at least still the possibility that the husband could be transformed by grace (and the example and encouragement of others) to treat his wife as a whole person and to see her sexuality as a beautiful part of her whole being as a woman, integrated into her entire self. The regular cycles of fertility and infertility can (though this is admittedly only a possibility) serve as a periodic nudge to the husband that something in his approach to his wife is out of kilter with her true dignity. I didn’t mean to imply that in the case of a woman who has surgically been rendered sterile that her husband could never undergo this transformation and treat her as a whole person. But, I think it becomes less likely because her body has been rendered “available” to him at any time (i.e. the “problem” of the possibility of another child has been removed) in such a way as to make it easier for him to continue a habit of regarding her sexuality as something primarily there for his pleasure. At least when her body is still functioning as an intact woman, he cannot escape this regular biological reminder (though he can ignore it) that her sexuality is not there simply for his pleasure. Grace can break through in any situation. But, we can complicate things by altering nature in such a way as to add to the barriers that grace has to break through before it can begin to alter a hardened, calloused heart.
Scott: this “biological reminder” didn’t do much to prevent these families from having more children they could afford to keep, did it? While you wait for grace to happen, families are starving, and every pregnancy is a potential death sentence. You might see this as an act of desparation on the part of these women, and that’s because it is. Large-scale behavior change takes time, and it will probably be too late for these women once it happens.
Also, an afterthought: If my mother got corrective knee surgery, is she less of a woman? If I lift weights and have a muscular back, am I less of a woman? If a man takes Viagra, is he less of a man?
Alexandra: An extremely valid point. The scenario you provided seems to imply that male sexuality is uncontrollable, which is obviously ridiculous and not exactly sound public policy. But the parallel between this situation and the work Kylie does is fuzzy. For one, hers isn’t a population-wide change. She works with individual women in extreme poverty who come to her after having had eight children. Kylie said this is the often first decision women have made for/about themselves in a long time. Yes, systems of gender oppression need to be changed. Women need to be able to advocate for themselves and to have access to reliable family planning methods. Maybe getting a hysterectomy is the first step in the process toward self-advocacy. Maybe it’s an act of desperation, and maybe it won’t radically change unequal gender relations in the marriage, but at least a woman will not have to put her body through such stress, and worry about feeding another mouth. Kylie’s work can be seen as the first step in a wider societal change.
I’m sure you’ve heard of Take Back the Night campaigns. Feminist anti-rape initiatives. The goal is to change our culture so that rape is completely unacceptable. However, hospitals still provide rape kits to women who need them. It’s a practical recognition that rape–gender oppression–still happens, despite efforts to change the cultural mentality. Do rape kits encourage men to use women as sexual objects?
Cranium: “I find your comment to be extraordinarily naive bmmg39. Do you realise how recently laws allowing for rape in marriage to be classed as a crime were introduced in many ‘modern, western’ nations? Do you really think these women would succeed with a rape claim against their husbands in a less enlightened country which is almost a catholic theocracy?”
My comment was not the least bit naďve. If you have difficulty grasping simple concepts, please say so, rather than assume the problem is on my end. Your “solution” seems to be to tell these women, “Well, we can’t keep your husband from raping you, but if we give you this you at least you won’t have any more children.” Show of hands: how many people are okay with this arrangement?
And even if there ever were to be such a thing as a “Catholic theocracy,” rape would not be a part of it. I look at Catholic theocracy and I see people going to confession, using Natural Family Planning, and helping the poor. I don’t believe there’s anything in the catechism about having the right to rape one’s spouse.
Scott,
For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but then again, I’m also pro-life :-) But keep standing up for life. As a married woman I appreciate it when other men like my husband stand up for the dignity of women and recognize that abortion and the like take that dignity away.
No, I don’t expect women to have hundreds of children. I don’t have a ton of children. And yes, I do know pregnancy and motherhood can be (and often are) difficult, but that doesn’t change the fact that abortion and sterilization (without a serious medical reason) do absolutely nothing to address the deeper issues.
But men like you, who recognize the dignity and beauty in a woman are the ones who will be able to help (in some way, whether big or small) the rest of the world to see that beauty and dignity.
I applaud you!
Megan, you make some pretty good points on societal vs. individual defenses against a lack of compassion towards women. Not being Catholic, I really have no problem with any individual woman choosing to get a tubal ligation etc. I don’t really think it’s the same as rape kits, because rape kits help punish the men who have wronged women, whereas surgery just hides one piece of evidence that men are wronging women. But I don’t think that such procedures should be illegal – I just don’t think they are necessarily the best way to treat the problem these women are suffering from, and I think that they can be perhaps overly glorified as a method of help.
I absolutely agree.
but at some point the patient figures out what she needs to say and I usually err on the side of believing the patient.
Kylie, by this statement do you mean that the woman is being abused in some way and can’t say no to a man without fear of reprisal? If so, and what you do to help her is to perform a hysterectomy, you are indeed enabling further abuse of women. The surgery is not part of the solution, it only continues the problem.
From someone who understands the issues surrounding abuse and enabling from first hand experience, I’m with you Scott and Bobby.
It starts with education, not more birth control.
“From someone who understands the issues surrounding abuse and enabling from first hand experience, I’m with you Scott and Bobby. ”
Hey I’m with Scott. He’s the man with the plan. I’m just riding on his coattails.
Wow, there’s that feminist rape thing again!
Do you want to know the best way to prevent rape? Fathers. That’s right, boys are brought up around their fathers who teach them to respect women. Imagine that. What a nutty idea.
Is it time to remind the ladies of the story of the elephants rampaging on the reserve until older male elephants were introduced to the situation. As soon as the older males settled in, the young elephant males stopped attacking the rhinos and other creatures. A little discipline, companionship, and setting an example is what boys need, whether they’re elephants or humans.
Speaker Doug Berry (http://www.radixguys.com ) says that we have to allow/teach men to protect women. That it’s ingrained in them and they need to be brought up to do that.
Dr. Ray Guarendi also talked about bringing up men to protect and provide for women. He mentioned that his son helped his daughter when she was trying to get up somewhere and his son kept his daughter from falling. He praised his son all day for helping out his little sister. (http://www.drray.com/index.htm).
The point of all this? Men are being told they need to back off. That it’s the woman’s body and it’s none of his business. Men are naturally protectors and providers. Granted, there are ones that are better than others–but the same can be said for women.
Women are being taught it’s not cool to be feminine–to be soft–that that’s weak–that it means men will subjugate them–which isn’t always true. There’s some very upstanding men in the world.
But it takes fathers taking responsibility and bringing up their sons to be good, honorable and loving human beings. To encourage women to be feminine, beautiful nuturers that women generally are.
It takes Mothers who are loving, nuturering and life giving.
I read an article on yahoo a few days ago (I don’t have the link) that Disney was talking about that “Tangled” would be their last animated movie having to do with a princess–that most girls, even as young as 5 and 6 year olds are more concerned with being “hot” rather than princesses.
Now I know my nieces that are under the age of 15 could care less about being “hot”. They usually wear dresses and like pretty things. One of my nieces is also very fond of the color pink (which was my favorite color as a little girl), so obviously there’s exceptions to the rule, but it made me sad that the article would suggest that little girls aren’t into princesses so much anymore. Sure, I know there were girls who didn’t care about fairytales and princesses, but still, our little ones are growing up too fast.
Parents and the culture need to be working on bringing up honorable manly men who will provide/protect and truly love as well as modest feminine/soft/nuturering women who will champion a good man as her hero and the man will slay dragons.
Sound too much like a fantasy? It isn’t. My husband is my hero. He’s slayed many dragons for me and he continues to take up the proverbial sword in my honor. He also provides and loves our child.
I get it, not every man is like that and not every woman has that luxury, but if we don’t work on it, there will be less and less men and women like that in the world.
ninek
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“A little discipline, companionship, and setting an example is what boys need, whether they’re elephants or humans.”
That’s a great line! I’m with you 110%
Mother in Texas,
My jaw dropped when I read the article about Disney Co. saying that princess stories are irrelevant today …. ”that most girls, even as young as 5 and 6 year olds are more concerned with being ‘hot’ rather than princesses”. I’m thinking it must be a really DUMB publicity ploy. If it’s their true thinking, then Lord have mercy on us all.
(That said, I’ve never been a huge Disney fan anyways. I didn’t see any of the movies as a young child.)
I would love to see that article, if possible? Only because Disney has built an industry on princesses (a detrimental one IMO – focused on all the wrong things – if I had children I’d rather limit their exposure to Disney for a variety of reasons, but that’s neither here nor there). A couple years ago I remember reading that they were trying to move on to ‘colonize’ fairies next – Tinkerbell got a pretty heavy focus – as the obsession to market to little girls after they outgrew princesses. I am not skeptical that this no-more-princesses article exists, just quite interested if this is the case.
My friend’s daughter recently told me she wants to be a princess when she grows up. I said, “Well, that’s an admirable goal! Princesses must be very nice and polite, to make people feel welcome; and they must be very smart, to know different languages and all kinds of things about other countries.” We put on princess clothes and went to study a very cursory bit of Spanish culture and customs and then we pretended to visit Barcelona. ;)
Alexandra,
If you google the topic of Disney/Tangled, (their latest princess movie), you should be able to find more information easily. I’d find you a link, but my internet is quite slow today for whatever reason. I like your take on a princess’s life.:)
Have you contributed anything constructive to this discussion Ninek? What’s your problem with feminism, anyway? If fathers were so good on their own at teaching their sons how to be respectful, then why did women need to bring the issue of rape and intimate partner violence to public attention in the seventies? The boy who raped one of my best friends has both a mom and a dad. Why did his father drop the ball in teaching his son basic respect–was it ’cause of the Big Bad Feminist She-Wolves? I will agree with you that men can, and must, be involved in efforts to stop rape. Rape of women, rape of men, all heinous. But to criticize women’s efforts to speak up for themselves–nasty feminists!–is just callous and stupid.
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-men-can-stop-rape/
“I get it, not every man is like that and not every woman has that luxury, but if we don’t work on it, there will be less and less men and women like that in the world.”
Can’t men and women possess these virtues in equal measure? Should we really be teaching our daughters to be passive princesses in need of protection, and our sons as valiant heroes? To me, this message says that women aren’t courageous and that men should never have fears or express the need to feel “safe.” Women can think critically and men can be loving and affectionate. I think it’s a little ridiculous now to prescribe these roles to people when they’re so fraught in the first place. It just results in feelings of inadequacy and disappointment.
I’ve seen the trailer for Tangled and it looks to be one more loud piece of filth posing as family entertainment. I was never a big Disney person but look at some of the quiet storytelling of Fantasia or Pinocchio of the mid-20th Century and then look at the manic animated films now. (Yes, I know about some of the more troubling aspects about Disney from those older times.)
We don’t need five-year-olds trying to look hot, but we also don’t need five-year-olds with a princess complex, either. When I see a little girl being given nothing but pink clothes and tiaras, I want to buy her a basketball.
I’m glad we finally found something to agree on, Megan. (4:23)
bmmg, we have a lot in common! I’ve never been comfortable with “princess complexes” or Disney in general, and the manic (perfect description) pace and pop-culture-over-awareness of today’s cartoons bothers me greatly.
You might like some stuff by Hayao Miyazaki – My Neighbor Totoro usually gets all the attention, but Spirited Away is probably my favorite. :) I have heard good things about the French cartoon Azur and Asmar as well, but have not gotten around to seeing it for myself yet.
bmmg39, your response finds me wondering about your ability to grasp reality. Are you not aware of the misogyny and entrenched patriarchy of some of these countries? It basically amounts to women not being allowed to say no or to refuse their husbands. Laying complaints against their men only triggers more trouble and risk for them. Heck, they can even be killed without any repercussions.
This is all very wrong of course, and everyone needs to encourage and support change. But unfortunately it will not change overnight. So in the interim, anything which makes the womens lives more ‘liveable’ is a valid option. It also demonstrates that women can sieze power in some small way which of itself may start events on that necessary journey.
Megan, tell us, are rape statistics higher or lower since the 70’s? Are young women at college safer today or were they safer in the 70’s? Are women more objectified now or were they more objectified in the 70’s?
For decades women have been telling men they didn’t matter, pushing them aside, telling them we need them like a fish needs a bicycle, etc.
While it may be true that some rapists come from two parent intact families, Megan, ask yourself: Do men respect women more today than they did in the 70’s?? I see a multibillion dollar international behemoth of a porn industry that tells me, NO. Women are less respected, more objectified, and even my 5 year old niece can repeat the phrase “b**ches and h**s” while her older sister asks for a stripper pole for her birthday.
Decades ago, Mizz Steinem put on a bunny suit to serve drinks and you’d have thought every cave man since the invention of the wheel had reached out and grabbed her tush. So, Mizz, what do you think of our cute little porn industry now? Gee, I feel so empowered. I feel like we’ve come such a long way. Woo freaking hoo.
Cranium: “Are you not aware of the misogyny and entrenched patriarchy of some of these countries? It basically amounts to women not being allowed to say no or to refuse their husbands.”
Yes, I am aware of the misogyny, and that’s all the more reason I consider your philosophy to be refurnishing the inside of the Hindenburg.
You stated that someone needs to intervene bmmg39. I merely pointed out the difficulty of achieving that, at least in the short term. And allowing women some control of their fertility mitigates the dire situations many find themselves in because that ‘intervention’ is going to be a long hard battle.
The hindenberg needs to be resurrected and rebuilt before anyone can even think about refurnishing its interior.
Yes, dearie, which makes it a good historical metaphor.
You know, I actually did a very extensive paper on how Disney’s princesses over the years have evolved with the public perception of women. Watch Snow White, or Sleeping Beauty. Notice how incredibly helpless they are, how much emphasis is placed on their need to be rescued, their helplessness. Then look at the more modern movies with princesses- Belle, a brilliant young woman with her own ideas, headstrong and brave. By the end of the movie, both she and the Beast realize that they have each saved the other in their own ways. ‘Princesses’ have changed as we have, mirroring our own growing understanding of the complexities of gender roles.
Alexandra,
You’re not a pro-abort? I’m mistaken then, I didn’t know you were pro-life..
Ok you’re agnostic, not atheist..
What have I got against feminists? Plenty. Young women may look on feminist figures with awe but I see how they hijacked what the suffragettes were trying to accomplish. Feminists in the late 60’s and 70’s suffered from an infection, an illness, called supporting and promoting abortion. Instead of staying focused on real women’s rights, they turned on our children and infected a whole generation of young women to turn on their children. They turned children into the enemy, the enemy who must be punished with death for the crime of simply existing. Feminism became corrupt, and feminists became disease carriers (the disease being abortion advocacy). Killing children is sick. A century ago, though it was no woman’s paradise, people understood that killing children was sick. Now, it’s common for anyone with a pulse and a keyboard to declare that unborn children aren’t even people and killing them is a loving thing to do.
So in the interim, anything which makes the womens lives more ‘liveable’ is a valid option.
Yes, we must seize any and all power we can get at any cost, even the lives of our own children. /eyeroll
Advocating such atrocities doesn’t make women more free, it just makes them slaves to a different master.
Megan at (4:23), Great post. I’m with you on this comment.
I’ve never had the need or want to be treated as a princess.
I’ve always had the need and want to be treated as an equal. With the rights all humans should have.
Beginning with the Right to Life.
There were problems with inequality for women before there was legalized abortion. However, abortion has caused more of the problems it promised to solve. And then some.
Are you a person of faith xalisae?
angel: For Catholics faithful to their beliefs, large families are NOT a problem. We consider children a gift from God, even many children.
Hi Angel. If you have a lot of kids or a few or just one, I hope you do love them. Sounds like you do really well on that score.
I don’t know whether others have noticed this, or if it’s really a “phenomenon,” but seems to me that the number of kids that Catholic families have has really declined over the past few decades.
My family lived in Youngstown, Ohio, from April 1966 to December 1972. We bought our house from a family with 13 kids, and on our block there were many Catholic families with a lot of kids. 11 right across the street, 9 next to them, 5 next to them, 10 next to them…. My best buddy was up the street the other way, and he had 7 brothers and sisters, and across the street from their house was another family with 10 kids.
Must have been 200 kids on that block. Now, 40 years later, I am just not seeing nearly as many large families. Sure seems like *something* has changed….
xalisae, I was married to a controlling abusive man for years and it took some intense counseling to ‘deprogram’ me and help me learn what had happened to me. I took classes, read books, talked with and to other abuse survivors. I know all the signs of abusive, controlling, patronizing personalities and can smell them coming, even on blogs.
Maybe you have this sixth sense too. If not, just a heads up. There’s one here and you are his next target.
Doug I too grew up surrounded by large families and many of my friends have large families.
I think that the problem is many Catholics no longer have a very strong faith- there is a lack of trust in God and a lack of generosity.
@Sydney M: I will pray for your husband that his heart may be opened. I don’t know if you are Catholic or not but a spouse not willing to have children is considered to have an impediment to marriage. God bless you.
I am not Catholic but my husband is. I am Baptist. I belong to a church and take my faith very seriously. My husband has not been to church since our wedding day. Maybe that has something to do with it. I do find that people with a relationship with God are a lot more open to children. My husband is a loving and wonderful father and claims to want more children but acts like we would end up on welfare if we have another which is NOT TRUE. Thank you for your prayers. This is the issue that seems to be turning a wonderful marriage into a distressed relationship and I don’t know what to do.
Back from a late evening. . . Time to make one or two more comments. . .
If my mother got corrective knee surgery, is she less of a woman? If I lift weights and have a muscular back, am I less of a woman? If a man takes Viagra, is he less of a man?
This analogy does not work. If your mother’s knee needs corrective surgery, the surgeon is correcting something that is damaged and needs repair. In the situations that Kylie described, there is at least a serious question (which she herself implied) as to whether a real medical need for hysterectomy was truly present. Performing a hysterectomy on a woman who does not have a legitimate medical need for it, or who can be treated competently with less radical measures, is not comparable to repairing a knee or medically aiding someone with erectile problems. There is no issue of making anyone “less” when legitimate and proportionate medical treatment is being given in response to a real medical need. However, when a woman who has a healthy uterus has her uterus surgically removed, physically speaking, she is in that sense less of a woman. The uterus is important hormonally for every day life. As are the ovaries (removed in a hysterectomy). This would be very similar to castrating a man for no legitimate medical reason. It’s a very radical thing to do.
Maybe getting a hysterectomy is the first step in the process toward self-advocacy.
As Megan and Kylie have said, these women request to be sterilized out of desperation. A decision made in desperation is not a truly free choice. A choice made under severe duress is itself acting in further compliance with the abuse. It is a result of abuse. If these women were not desperate–not under severe duress–would they want to be sterilized? Making radical choices in desperation is not progress; it is not an exercise of authentic human freedom. Is it really self-advocacy to act in desperation? I don’t think it is.
What we are really talking about here is rape. If any woman is forced into sex–including within marriage (as Pope John Paul II himself wrote)–she is being raped. Is sterilization really the first step toward transforming a society for the better that has a major problem with rape within marriage? How is this the first step toward making the men in such a culture more able to recognize and cherish the dignity of women as whole persons?
I don’t think that women choosing sterilization in desperation (a choice I suggest many of them would not make if they were truly free and not being abused and not desperate) has the possibility to do anything at all in the way of making positive progress toward a cultural change for the better.
They only real way a married woman can be treated in a way that is fully adequate to her true dignity as a woman is to have a husband who regards her as a whole person and not like a sex object. Getting herself sterilized only makes it easier for him to continue to treat her like a sex object in his own heart because he no longer has to even consider the possibility of what is normally an integral and natural connection between sex and babies. Separate sex from babies (by sterilization) and you make it more likely that men will develop the horrible and depersonalizing habit of regarding women as objects for sex. Now, a woman might settle for this and convince herself that this is acceptable. But, if she does so, she is not truly free; she is not being treated in a way that is appropriate to her dignity as a human person. Agreeing in her heart to accept this essentially abusive circumstance so that on the outside she appears to be fine, is not progress. It is rather, regress–accepting a kind of enslavement (to the lusts of men) and putting a smile on top and pretending it’s not there.
If rape is happening in marriage, such men should be jailed. But, knowing that this is unlikely, the response ought to be something that addresses in some serious way the real problem: the out-of-control lusts of men. Sterilization is something that actually enables the root cause of the problem by merely removing the possibility of one of the undesirable consequences of the abuse (more children than a family can handle), without addressing the abuse itself in any way.
One final remark. When I said above that a woman is rendered a “mere thing” for the pleasures of men by sterilization, I meant this as hyperbole, not literally. And–this is key–I was not referring to her objective, inherent value and dignity which remains intact and is tremendously great no matter what happens to her. I was, however, referring to the interior dispositions of the men in her life. How do they look upon her? By sterilization, it becomes more likely, I would claim, that her husband or boyfriend–in his own subjective, interior attitude toward her–will look upon her as though she were a “mere thing.” It’s not a certainty this will happen; but sterilization makes it more likely.
Here in the United States, contraception and sterilization have made it easier for men to treat women as though they were mere objects for their sexual pleasure. The biggest fan of the increased use and acceptance of contraception (not necessarily publicly, but interiorly) is the male reprobate who wants only to use women for sex. It is quite astonishing to me how the radical feminist movement seems to be in total denial about this. They have played right into the hands of the worst of men and they call it liberation. The men know better. But they stay quiet, happy to let the women delude themselves so long as they continue to be able to easily obtain “free” sex without any need for commitment, without the bother of fostering real love, without bothering with fatherhood.
Can’t men and women possess these virtues in equal measure? Should we really be teaching our daughters to be passive princesses in need of protection, and our sons as valiant heroes?
There’s nothing “passive” about feminity or the type of “princess” I was trying to illustrate. You misunderstood me (as well as everyone else who thought I was saying what you think I’m saying).
Basically it’s this: Women should not be afraid to engage their feminity with modesty and not be afraid of their “softness”. It’s not about being passive, it’s about recognizing one’s place in the world as a woman. Each sex has their own gifts. GENERALLY women are not as aggressive as men (yes, we have tempers and we can certainly fly into a fury with the best of males) but what I mean is, it’s not necessary for us as women to be exactly like men.
We need to respect men’s place in the world as they need to respect ours. Women can be heroines in their own right. What’s happened in the world is a kind of “fear” of femininity. Some women fear their “softness” their matneral instincts and instead cover them up with aggression or whatever and think to be equal to men we have to do everything men do, which isn’t true. We don’t. We don’t have to take up our swords the same way men do because we were endowed with other gifts and talents.
Men are GENERALLY more aggressive and more protective and providers. I’m not saying women can’t provide/protect (we Mamas that love our children are most definitely not shy about protecting our young–but that’s not the same as what I’m saying men are in general ingrained with) I’m just saying that based on hormones and general make up men are usually the ones that protect and provide. It’s nothing against women, like I said, we all have different gifts.
We need to stop thinking in terms of it being a matter of equality and/or weaknesses, because there is NO inequality or weakness here. We are partners, but to be partners we have to stop wishing for talents that we don’t have/need. Everyone has their own gifts and talents. Women don’t have to be the aggressive/protector solider type the same way men are because typically we’re the softer/nuturing/encouragors. Men have their loving/encouraging/nuturing side, but it doesn’t have to (nor is it usually) the same way women are.
Men protect the dignity of women and women lift up the men’s dignity.
There is absolutely nothing passive in either place. I recommend hearing Doug Berry’s talk on “Sexual Purity” to understand what I’m saying (http://www.radixguys.com ).
To me, this message says that women aren’t courageous and that men should never have fears or express the need to feel “safe.”
Again, you misunderstood me completely. I never said women can’t or aren’t courageous; I said that men are in general the more aggressive ones, the ones that are ingrained with the protect the woman syndrome.
Men often have fears and it’s up to the woman to be the nuturer and encourager of the man. Whether this is her father, brother, husband or son. We women have an incredible opportunity to revel in our femininity and what is in general ingrained in us to be the loving supporter. What is that saying? “Behind every great man is a woman”?
Again, it’s about taking up our positions as men and women and be PARTNERS.
Women can think critically and men can be loving and affectionate. I think it’s a little ridiculous now to prescribe these roles to people when they’re so fraught in the first place. It just results in feelings of inadequacy and disappointment.
I absolutely didn’t say anything about men not being loving and affectionate. In fact, in being the protectors/providers heros men often find ways of being loving and affectionate. (Just ask the fathers I saw at a Conference I was recently at. Just talk to my dad who has 6 daughters and 2 sons. Watch my husband with my child).
Neither sex is inadequate. We only preceive these things as inadequacy and disappointments because either A. people misuse their gifts and B. People try to take advantage of each other. Or both. There’s a HUGE misunderstanding of what all this means.
What I was saying and proposing was a partnership. Not one being better than the other, but women understanding it’s okay to have “softness” and feminity and that it’s okay for men to be men.
My husband is my hero not because he thinks I’m weak or a coward, but because he sees me as his partner and his princess. He sees me as a treasure and his lover. His friend. Companion. As I see him as my champion and supporter, partner, lover, friend, companion, confidant (that is, someone I can confide in). I’m also not saying I have the perfect marriage, but that I’m fine with being a woman. In fact, I’m very happy to be a woman. I think we women have a rare gift in being thought of as more the nuturers than men and an opportunity to show men they can slay dragons and depend on us to be there when they need someone to encourage them.
That is part of what it means to have a man be a champion. A supporter, a protector someone who keeps his commitments and loves.
For a woman, it means nuture, love, care, and lifting her man up to see the hero inside of him. To keep her commitments and to love.
It is most definitely NOT anything to do with anyone being a coward or weak. I see a lot of strength in women who exercise these things, whether they’re home makers or have careers.
P.S. Some resources:
Christopher West (http://www.christopherwest.com ).
Christopher West’s talk for women: “Woman: God’s Masterpiece” (http://www.ascensionpress.com/shop/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=102) <–a really beautiful audio CD which made me feel so special to be a woman. I heard it while I was pregnant and I never was so grateful for being a woman as when I heard this talk.
Christopher West’s talk for men: “Winning The Battle For Sexual Purity” (http://www.ascensionpress.com/shop/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=150) <–My husband and I watched this on DVD some years back, from what I can remember it’s good. But then again, anything by Christopher West (so far based on at least 5 talks I’ve heard in person, not including a book I read by him or talks I’ve seen on DVD/VHS and heard on audio CD).
I haven’t watched the following resource, yet, but if it’s anything like his “Sexual Purity” talk (or any of his other talks I’ve heard both on audio and in person–which come out to about 3-4 talks) then it will be excellent: Doug Barry “First Line Of Defense” (DVD) — (http://radixguys.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=70&osCsid=f7db0035abd4c6b41a7853a4f5a6a8bd).
Scott,
You are a welcome addition to this thread!
What you’re saying about not having men treat women as sex objects (and vice versa since women can do the same to men) is exactly part of what I’m trying to say.
Marriage is supposed to be a partnership not a power trip! BRAVO, I applaud you!
Still not seeing the point. You’re speaking in generalities that don’t capture reality. There is no such thing as a “real” man or a “real” woman. Femininity and masculinity are poorly-defined terms, sort of associated with either sex, that both men and women can possess. My father is arguably more “feminine” than my mother in that he is more sensitive and introverted. My mother finds herself naturally at ease in crowds. She’s a born leader. Yes, their relationship is complementary, but their traits do not map out easily onto preconceived gender lines.
Sure Scott. What do you propose Kylie do instead for the women who have seven kids NOW and cannot wait for the gender regime to change? Should she follow these women back to their homes and make their husbands promise to practice natural family planning with them?
Thank you, Mother in Texas!
God bless everyone, and Happy Thanksgiving!
Megan, I don’t have an easy answer. I wish I did. I’m just trying to explain how sterilization, the way I see things, is not really a solution though in the short term it may seem to be. Peace.
They have played right into the hands of the worst of men and they call it liberation
This is for sure!
Thanks for the follow-up posts M.I.T. There are differences between the genders and those need to be respected and we shouldn’t try to pretend they don’t exist. However, what ”traditionally” may work for one couple does not alway work for another. One example: “If he is outspoken, he’s assertive and doing a good job. If she is, she’s a b*tch.” My mom did most of the yard work and my dad did most of the cooking. They compromised because they liked these chores better and it worked out. They are going on 50 years on marriage built on mutual respect and tolerance for their differences.
Different does not have to mean unequal.
What about long-acting, reversible contraceptives? Do these render women somehow “sub-woman,” Scott?
Scott made some excellent points at the 12:33 comment.
Praxedes,
But they were a partnership. And I’m sure your father would’ve protected the dignity of your mother in a heartbeat and if your father needed encouragement I’m sure your mother did that. I’m sure she lifted his dignity up in ways you might not have always seen (we kids don’t always see EVERYTHING our parents do) 50 years doesn’t happen by accident. (Congratulations to them, by the way…that’s truly wonderful and uplifting to hear).
And I never said women couldn’t do yard work. I never said women couldn’t/wouldn’t be outspoken. Shoot, I know women like that. Most of my sisters all learned how to mow the lawn, but you can bet my dad had his opinions about who would and wouldn’t marry his daughters–he left the decision up to us, but he knew they better be men who would love and respect his girls otherwise he wouldn’t respect them.
Men can be interested in the arts and still be heterosexual men who protect the dignity of women (I know a few like that) but if you threatened someone in their life–particularly a woman they would immediately come to that woman’s defense.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even if a woman does things that are typically “men’s work” they should maintain their femininity (I’m not saying wear high heels to mow the lawn or anything like that) I’m saying, not try to BE men. Not sit there and reject the fact that men might actually be better at something than a woman.
Men might cook or bake (my dad does) but he’s not trying to BE a woman. He can turn around and defend my mother’s dignity in a heartbeat, he isn’t trying to BE a woman. He recognizes that as a man there are somethings women do or understand better than men.
Like I said, I probably am not describing it that great. Check out the sources I provided. They explain it better than me.
Megan,
As I said above at 12:33, the inherent value and dignity of a woman cannot be diminished. This is irregardless of what she does herself or what is done to her. (Note: I won’t go into it here for time and space reasons, but, there is a recognition in philosophy of two basic sorts of dignity, named in various ways. I am referring in this thread to inherent dignity–the most fundamental sort–that which is a part of every person as a person just as DNA is within every human cell. But there is another sort of dignity–acquired dignity–which can be built up or diminished in a person through their own actions and the actions of others. I’m not speaking here of this sort of dignity).
However, her place in the world in the eyes of others can be degraded. And I hold that any sort of contraception (the way it works does not matter) or sterilization has a great potential to tacitly encourage some men to treat her–from the point of view not of her own inherent dignity, but from their own interior attitudes–as less than a whole, integral person. In other words, anything that encourages men (especially those who are most inclined to think this way already) to regard women not as whole and integral persons but to focus especially on their sexual values above everything else in a way that is unbalanced and disintegrated, makes women “sub-women” in the hearts of men. And this is a terrible thing.
Now, of course, this problem did not need contraception or sterilization in order to exist in the first place; these do not explain the origin of this impersonal and disintegrated attitude in the hearts of men (original sin gets the blame here). But, such practices take an already existing problem and make it worse. Again, I’m not speaking here of the inherent dignity all women posses; but, of the greater or lesser ability of men to recognize and live in accord with this dignity.
[And I want to make a brief note lest I be seen as thinking that all men in the way they think of women are thoroughly horrible reprobates within the hidden recesses of their souls. Such is not the case! There is a huge range here from Saint to the worst sinner, and everything in between. And there is also a range within the same man, from day to day and hour to hour. With God’s grace, our freely willed participation in this journey toward greater purity of heart, and the example and encouragement of others, we can all be moving forward on the path from sinner to Saint. But we’ve got to be real about what hinders this journey and puts large obstacles in this path for an entire culture.]
I totally understand and agree M.I.T. I have read Christopher West and seen him speak. I was hoping to clarify any misconceptions.
You are right about my parents. They have been and are a great partnership. There was no playing those two against each other. Mom usually disciplined but if we got out of line, Dad ALWAYS backed her up.
I was in a marriage where discipline has not been backed up and actually was undermined. ”You don’t have to listen to her.” This is not only harmful to the marriage but also harmful to the children.
Praxedes
November 24th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I totally understand and agree M.I.T. I have read Christopher West and seen him speak. I was hoping to clarify any misconceptions.
Man, every time I see you address me as “M.I.T.” I have to remind myself you’re talking to me and not about the college LOL sorry…motherhood and several other things get on my mind, so my brain has to switch gears almost constantly but it’s all good :-)
You are right about my parents. They have been and are a great partnership. There was no playing those two against each other. Mom usually disciplined but if we got out of line, Dad ALWAYS backed her up.
There you go! Your dad picked up his sword and backed up your mom. He protected and defended simply by backing her up and respecting her. That’s a big part of what I was driving at :-) Your Dad wouldn’t let people disrespect the woman he loved. That’s part of being treated as a princess — and that’s NOT because your mother was weak, but it was because your father uplifted your mother’s dignity and respected her.
In my family, my father definitely backed up my mom. In fact, often he’d ask “What did your mother say?” LOL
I was in a marriage where discipline has not been backed up and actually was undermined. ”You don’t have to listen to her.” This is not only harmful to the marriage but also harmful to the children.
Yeah, it’s a trap that anyone can fall into if they don’t watch themselves. That’s part of the reason I say men need to be men but they need to protect the women in their lives by not bringing them down and a woman needs to be a woman but she doesn’t need to bring a man down by belittling or treating him with disrespect. We have to respect, uplift and truly love each other, whether we’re married, single, engaged, priest, nun, whatever.
Scott,
You’re right. Contraception itself isn’t the root of the problem. Just look at conflict zones, at the Congo and Bosnia-Herzegovina: women raped and forced to bear the children of the enemy. Women’s fertility horrifically used and abused. Men can treat women poorly, contraception or not.
I’d like to see some statistic that says women who use contraception vs. those who don’t are at more risk of abuse. You seem to be implying that all women (subconsciously?) want every sexual act to be tied to procreation, and that by using contraception, they’re caving to the sexual desires of their partners. Wrong. Some women might think this, especially on this blog, but not all. I dare you to argue that women who use contraception are operating under some kind of false consciousness.
There you go! Your dad picked up his sword and backed up your mom. He protected and defended simply by backing her up and respecting her. That’s a big part of what I was driving at. Your Dad wouldn’t let people disrespect the woman he loved. That’s part of being treated as a princess — and that’s NOT because your mother was weak, but it was because your father uplifted your mother’s dignity and respected her.
I don’t really understand why this is gender-specific, though? I mean, if someone disrespected the man I love, I would have his back in a second. I appreciate him coming to my defense whenever someone is being a jerk, but I will also never hesitate to rush to his defense as well. It’s a partnership – it’s not like, he protects me; I encourage him. We protect and encourage each other.
I don’t really understand why this is gender-specific, though? I mean, if someone disrespected the man I love, I would have his back in a second. I appreciate him coming to my defense whenever someone is being a jerk, but I will also never hesitate to rush to his defense as well. It’s a partnership – it’s not like, he protects me; I encourage him. We protect and encourage each other.
Alexandra,
Like I said, I’m having a difficult time explaining what I’m trying to say, hence the reason I put up those resources from Christopher West’s site and Doug Barry’s talks. I even emailed Doug Barry to get help in explaining it on here. I haven’t heard back from him (he’s either touring doing talks or busy with family since it is the Thanksgiving Holiday–or both).
Men are in general the protectors. Not because women wouldn’t jump to the defense of their beloved, but because in today’s society men are often told “Oh you can’t be like that, you can’t be so aggressive, you have to be so in touch with your feminine side.” and the minute a man isn’t he’s labeled as insensitive (I think most of us, including myself, are guilty of that at one point or another). Men can be sensitive without having to be feminine or a woman. Women can be protective without having to be masculine or a man.
Doug Barry told a story about a young man who took his girlfriend’s father out for a steak dinner. Over the dinner the young man asked the father if he could have his daughter’s hand in marriage.
The father told the young man how much he loved his daughter and had worked hard to protect her soul and to protect her and everything. He asked the young man if he thought he was man enough to take on the responsibility of caring for his daughter’s soul and to care for her and protect her.
The young man said, that yes, he thought he was. The father shook the young man’s hand and said “I do, too. You may have my daughter’s hand in marriage.”
To me, that says the young man respected his girlfriend so much and the father’s love for his daughter he was willing to step up and prove that he could respect and love the daughter.
My own husband asked my dad if he could marry me. Originally he wasn’t going to. I had asked him if he would and he said “Why do I have to do that?” and I said “I just think it’s sweet and a form of respect. One of my brothers-in-law did it and I just thought it was nice.” The day my husband proposed to me we were going to get together and watch a movie at his apartment. I was upstairs finishing getting ready and my husband was downstairs with my parents. On the spur of the moment he asked my dad if he could marry me. My dad said “You may marry her and I hope she says yes!” and shook my husband’s hand. (Obviously I did say yes–in fact, my husband wasn’t able to say everything he was going to say because I cut him off by throwing my arms around him and saying “Yes! I’ll marry you!” LOL).
My husband wasn’t the one who told me what happened. My FATHER told me. I was surprised (pleasantly so) and I told my husband how wonderful I thought that was. He brushed it off like it was no big deal, but to me it said he respected my father and his love and care he had given me.
For me, it’s not just romantic and sweet it also says that the man who wants to marry the woman recognizes how a loving father wants what’s absolutely best for his children and how a lot of times women are the targets of crime and abuse and wants to protect them from that.
The other thing is, at one point before my husband and I even got engaged we were having a serious talk about our relationship. I expressed that I was worried because none of my previous relationships had worked out and I didn’t want to suffer another heartbreak. My husband said at the time, “You have to take a leap of faith.” I said “If I fall, will you catch me?” He said “Yes.” And he’s been catching me ever since even after we got married by encouraging me, providing for me and offspring and just being the hero of my heart. (Yes, I have said “He’s my hero” LOL–I am a romantic, but more than that, my husband truly is a wonderful man).
My mother (and myself and any of my sisters) can stand on her own two feet. She ain’t no shrinking violet, but she also is the heart of the family and my father recognizes how important that heart is and how much it needs nuturing and defending. My mother wouldn’t allow us to lambast my father (or anyone to for that matter) and she builds him up.
And I did say it’s a partnership.
Does this mean I don’t recognize that some women aren’t cut out for being stay-at-home providers? On the contrary, I know plenty of women who are either partial breadwinners or THE breadwinner of the family–but I also notice they have a softer, nurturing side to go with that working woman persona.
Does this mean I don’t recognize some men are more tender hearted? On the contrary, I know men who are more tender hearted than others, but this doesn’t mean they wouldn’t defend a woman’s heart and soul at a drop of a hat.
But I also think we need to embrace our roles as opposite sexes. To take joy in the fact that the two sexes complement and fit together in such a wondrous way.
P.S. I don’t know if any of this helps, but it’s hard for me to put it into words. That’s another reason why I cited Christopher West and Doug Barry because they say it in ways that I can’t seem to express.
Christopher West? I don’t trust any man who claims that a woman’s main virtue is her passivity: “The essence of her being (Mary) was receptivity – her “yes” to God is a model for all women to follow.”
Really? That’s the secret to life, then. Just say yes.
I guess I just think that there are far greater differences between individual people of one gender, personality-wise, than there are between the two genders. And that functional, happy, loving relationships exist between two people, not two genders, so generalizing widely on the natural roles for two people is somewhat ineffective. I have read Christopher West before so it’s not that I misunderstand what you’re saying – I just think that, really, discussing emotional differences between men and women is not very practical, because individual women are as different from other women, emotionally, as they are from men.
I don’t like to be told how I feel, how I “really” feel, or how I should feel; and such discussions always seem to lean that way. I see no need to embrace my femininity – I embrace my Alexandra-inity! The fact that I’m ME has a lot more to do who I am and how I feel than the fact that I’m a woman does. I have a nurturing side and a protective side and a pragmatic side and an emotional side but they are as unique to me, compared to other women, as they are compared to men. I don’t mean that I’m some special little snowflake but that I am as likely to have these feelings and inclinations in common with my male friends as with my female friends. That doesn’t make me a man, or mean I’m trying to be a man; and it doesn’t mean my male friends are trying to be women. They’re just being themselves.
To me, it isn’t that two genders fit together and complement each other – there are LOTS of men who would not complement me well. It is that we two people complement each other well – a man and a woman, yeah, but not A man and A woman – this man and this woman. Thus our “roles” are less about man/woman dynamics and more about Alexandra/Mr. Alexandra dynamics.
“The essence of her being (Mary) was receptivity – her “yes” to God is a model for all women to follow.”
Megan, Mary said “Yes” to God. I am glad she did and I would hope I would say ‘yes’ to whatever God and Mary would ask me to do. Mary is anything but passive. She is in fact, quite assertive, especially about certain issues.
I do agree with some of what you and Alexandra say. People need to defend and protect each other.
Mother in Texas, I personally do not like the idea of men asking a father for their daughter’s hand in marriage. This tradition stems from the day when men owned their daughters and wives as they did a cow or camel. Ugh! Women are not property and because of certain mindsets they have been treated as such.
Gender inequality is what caused women to fight for equal rights in the first place. These fights brought about many good things but were taken to the other extreme also, where now some women believe that they own their preborn children and can kill them if they so wish. Ugh! Children are not property either. No human is property no matter how old or young they are.
I also have the same last name that I was born with. During my first marriage when people asked my husband about why I didn’t share his last name, my husband would reply “She’s one of those.” This from a man who pressured and paid to abort several of his children (I found this out later) and pressured me to abort one of ours.
I asked my second husband if he wanted to get married (and I never asked his mom for permission before hand!). When he said yes, I asked him what he thought about last names and he said he wouldn’t want to change his last name and understood if I didn’t want to change mine either.
I think we have to be careful about not swinging too far in either direction. My current marriage is a partnership. My last marriage was a dictatorship.
On a different note, I want to say how thankful I am for the people I have ‘met’ here at Jill’s. Those who agree with me, those who agree with me on some issues, and those who disagree with me on everything. Thank you Jill for allowing all voices to be heard here.
Praxedes, that was a great comment! I agree with everything you said – even about Mary. I have always liked Mary. ;)
Thanks Alexandra. I love your quote ”I embrace my Alexandra-inity!”
After years of being abused by men, I was so hurt and angry that I had a hard-time relating to any men, including Jesus.
I talked to Mary and she led me to Him. Mary is beyond cool, to say the least. :)
Mother in Texas, I personally do not like the idea of men asking a father for their daughter’s hand in marriage. This tradition stems from the day when men owned their daughters and wives as they did a cow or camel. Ugh! Women are not property and because of certain mindsets they have been treated as such.
Wow, I don’t look at it like that at all! It may stem from that tradition, but to me, asking a father for permission to court his daughter or for permission to ask her hand in marriage is, to me, a sign of respect knowing that the father is the authority and protection over that daughter and is usually the one (well, hopefully, anyway!) who comes to her aid if she needs him. The young man is essentially seeking to take on the role of protector and provider for the daughter (taking her as his wife) who until now has been under the protection of the father.
If people want to view that as misogynistic, then… well, pretty much, you can choose be offended when you seek to find offense.
And btw, I never had that – protection from a father. Mine was never in the picture by his own choice. Praxedes, I too understand how difficult that can be, trying to relate to God when the only way you’ve related to male authorities is through abandonment or abuse. :(
Hi Kel, I believe that by “knowing that the father is the authority“ is not putting women on an equal level. The father is no more the authority over his daughter than the mother is. If you don’t think knowing that the male is the authority is misogynistic, that is certainly your right. I respect this and will agree to disagree.
The young man is essentially seeking to take on the role of protector and provider for the daughter (taking her as his wife) who until now has been under the protection of the father.
And I believe some of this sort of thinking is what keeps women oppressed and led to evils like abortion in the first place.
We don’t ask women if we can marry their sons. Men don’t ask mothers if they can marry their daughter. How about the couple talk to all parents, including steps if any parent abandoned the child, about their desire to marry?
you can choose be offended when you seek to find offense
A proabort could use this same argument.
I’m glad I don’t feel the need to have the love of my life rubber-stamped by my father. I’d never be happy.
MiT: “Men can be sensitive without having to be feminine or a woman. Women can be protective without having to be masculine or a man.”
— except that “feminine” and “masculine” are gender constructs. If a person has male genitalia, he’s masculine, and if a person has female genitalia, she’s feminine. That’s about it. It’s not about behavior. If a man is “acting feminine,” then that “feminine” behavior is really masculine behavior, because it’s a man doing it.
Alexandra: ”
I guess I just think that there are far greater differences between individual people of one gender, personality-wise, than there are between the two genders. And that functional, happy, loving relationships exist between two people, not two genders, so generalizing widely on the natural roles for two people is somewhat ineffective. I have read Christopher West before so it’s not that I misunderstand what you’re saying – I just think that, really, discussing emotional differences between men and women is not very practical, because individual women are as different from other women, emotionally, as they are from men.”
I agree with this completely. Alexandra (for example) and I are different because every human being is unique, not because she’s female and I’m male.
Not only do I think men shouldn’t ask a woman’s father for her hand, but I also believe the man doesn’t need to be the one to propose all the time. (Way to go, Praxedes.) I think men are tired of being cast in the role of eternal providers, protectors, and proposers.
I can see it both ways – I don’t think that most people who ask the father for permission (or like that idea) have malicious intent or view women as second-class citizens. I think that lots of people like tradition for the fact that it is tradition alone, because we DO attach emotion to cultural ideals regarding what someone “should” or “will” do if they love you. He should buy you flowers/give you a ring/
At the same time, my feeling is that my father and mother have confidence that they raised me to make good choices – and so if I chose to marry someone, that would be a “yes” from them as well. Their goal has not been to protect me until someone else can, but rather to raise me to make informed and wise choices. Sometimes that informed and wise choice will be going to them for advice or help, and if I asked them for help in deciding whether to marry someone, that would be different than someone asking them permission to marry me. If they felt a desire to “okay” my choice, they would probably not be okay with me getting married at all. And as for the man, I personally think that the opinion he should take into account when asking, is mine. If for some reason we were concerned about a parent’s reaction, I would love for him to ask me to marry him (or me to ask him) first and then for US to go together and ask/talk to my/his parents about it. But that’s just me – I don’t think that MIT is saying that her father “rubber-stamped” her husband or anything like that. Her father raised her a certain way and knew her, and her husband knew and respected the person MIT had grown into – which is the person she is today! They fit well together. :)
Ah. Well, I guess I can see it that way. Make sense, too. My dad doesn’t know me at all.
Kel,
Totally agree with everything you wrote!!
you can choose be offended when you seek to find offense
A proabort could use this same argument.
Praxedes, I have no idea what you’re saying here, but if you’re comparing me to a proabort, I’d really like to know why. Thanks.
As a Christian, I believe in Christian marriage as set forth in Scripture where a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, and to give himself up for her. With the role of husband as protector and provider for the wife and their children, I see Christ’s example in that, not misogyny. I also see the natural inclination of a Daddy wanting to protect his children, especially his daughters. You can argue till you’re blue in the face that sons and daughters are the same/viewed the same, but they are not. There is something different in the way a father interacts with his daughters as compared to his sons. I see it in my own household with my husband and children. It’s honestly something I WISH I had had growing up. I would have loved having a father who wanted to protect me and love me and guide me and provide me with wisdom to enable me to grow up and make wise choices. Thankfully, while my dad didn’t, my mom took over in that arena. And let me say that if my mother had strongly disapproved of my husband when we were dating, I would have given serious consideration to that and would have thought twice before marrying him. I had THAT much respect for the wisdom of my mother and her judgment.
I think men are tired of being cast in the role of eternal providers, protectors,
And many men who are “tired” of that role abandon their families and feel no obligation to love their wives and children and to provide for them emotionally as well as financially. I don’t see anything wrong with a woman proposing – however, I wouldn’t have wanted that for myself. I also don’t see anything wrong with a woman working outside the home and providing for the family. I grew up with a strong, independent single mother as the head of my home, and while it wasn’t ideal, she did what she had to do to provide for us. But would it have been better for us emotionally and financially if my father had taken his responsibilities as provider and protector seriously? Most likely, yes.
I warned you all I wasn’t very good at explaining what I was trying to say. It frustrates me more than y’all know when I try and try to say something but it doesn’t come out quite right. When I say one thing people think I’m saying women are weak and passive (which I’m not) and when I say another thing people think I’m saying women are men’s property (which I’m also NOT saying).
Anyway, I will try again to explain it.
First of all, here are my resources for anyone who missed the post with the links. Listen to Doug Barry’s talks and check out the talk for women that Christopher West gives. They say what I’ve been trying to say WAY better than I have. Doug Barry: http://www.radixguys.com Christopher West: http://www.christopherwest.com
To Megan: Christopher West never says anything about women being passive. I’m not sure you even really listened to him because if you did, you’d see he has a HUGE respect and REVERENCE for women. At pretty much every talk of his I’ve attended (and that’s at least 5 talks that I’ve seen in person) in all of those [including the audio cd talk he does for women] he apologizes to women for how men used them as mere objects rather than something to respect and care for. He never says anything about women being passive. Never once. (BTW, Doug Barry doesn’t say stuff about women being passive either).
To Praxedes: I was never my father’s property, but I sure was under his care. I never saw it as anything but a form of respect. And I felt like my husband respected me and my dad and my family when he asked my father for his permission to marry me. I felt special–I felt like my husband respected my family and me so much he was willing to make sure they were okay with him marrying me. The fact that my father said “I hope she says yes” surprised me a bit because even though I knew he liked my husband I didn’t know he felt that way. As I say to Alexandra lower down in this post, the whole man asking girl’s permission to marry her isn’t a requirement, I just see it as a form of respect to both the family and the girl in question, but I never said it was a requirement.
To bmmg39 : But I wasn’t talking about genitlia, I was talking about traits that are usually more prominent in one sex or the other. Men are generally more aggressive than women. Men generally have a more of a protect and provide instinct than women. In general women are mostly the nuturers and care givers. Does that mean one’s better than the other NO WAY. Does this mean men can’t be nuturing and loving, I never ever said that. What it means is that usually this is what females exhibit in their behavior and what males exhibit and their behavior. THAT is what I meant when I talk about maculinity or feminity.
To Xal: My father didn’t HAVE to “rubber stamp” my life. In fact, my parents have been very big on all of us making our own life decisions, but we value their thoughts and opinions and view points because they are very wise human beings. I come from a family of 8 children, 6 of which are girls. My Dad had to learn how to relate to women more than ever, despite the fact that he has 2 sisters, he still had to learn how to relate to each of us. He may not know me PERFECTLY but he does love me and care for me and want nothing but the absolute best for me and I’m grateful for all he has done and keeps doing. My father is a wonderful man who adores my mother and I couldn’t ask for better parents.
To Alexandra: Thank you for understanding about my husband asking my father’s permission to marry me. Originally he honestly wasn’t going to. It was a spur of the moment decision and I loved him all the more for it. And it was my father who told me my husband did that, not my husband. It was as if my husband was being humble about the whole thing and I thought it was one of the most romantic things he’d ever done. My dad was my hero much of my life. Now my husband has taken on that role. I still love my father and cherish him very much because he’s part of the reason I am who I am. He showed me that a real man loves, reveres and respects his wife and cherishes, loves and protects his children. My Dad didn’t ask my mother’s parents for their permission to marry her, but I do remember my grandparents liking my dad. So, the whole asking permission thing is a case by case thing and I didn’t say it was a requirement, I just think of it as a form of respect.
To Kel: You took one post to explain pretty much what I’ve been trying to say in almost half a dozen posts! THANK YOU! I am very sorry your father was not in the picture. That’s rough on a person. *HUGS*
God bless to all.
KEL November 26th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I could just HUG YOU! Like I said in the post just before this one, you’re saying what I’ve been trying to say in almost 1/2 a dozen posts in ONE (or rather, two) post(s). I just am not the greatest at explaining things…I tend to ramble and try to be diplomatic and then everything gets convuluted. You were very clear and concise and I was like “YES! EXACTLY!”
Still going here! Hope a blessed Thanksgiving was had by all and everyone stopping by here.
Megan, to my knowledge, there is no statistic dealing with contraception use by women as correlated (or not) with abuse of women. Perhaps there is–I haven’t looked for it. And actually, I don’t think there could be a statistic pertaining to what I am talking about. That’s because what I am primarily concerned with for this thread (as I’ve pointed out several times) is the interior attitude of the man. A man may not be physically or even emotionally abusive toward a woman even as he already regards her in his own heart in a depersonalized way. It’s the question of how he looks upon her with his heart–with the eyes of his soul. Does he see her as a whole person, or as valuable to him primarily because of the sexual pleasure he might have from her? This is what I am most concerned about here in relation to contraception or sterilization. Outward and explicit, obvious abuse committed by a man in connection to a woman’s sexuality–whether physical or emotional/psychological abuse–is preceded and prepared for first by an earlier change in the man’s heart. I contend (and it’s relevant here that i am a man and claim a kind of knowledge here that comes from being a man) that the man who abuses a woman sexually in an outward manner has long before then already been abusing her in his heart. He regards her sexuality more as something to be used for his pleasure than as something that is an integral and beautiful aspect of her entire person. It is precisely this shift that I mean–the interior shift in the heart of a man where he goes from respecting and seeing a woman as a whole person to seeing her–at least in certain times or circumstances–as a sex object first.
It is this shift in the heart of a man–this degradation, disintegration, and diminishment of the vision of his heart–that I am talking about. And it is this which I claim contraception makes more likely (though it is not the cause). Contraception is an invitation for a man to look upon a woman as a sex object. Again, it does not cause this. It makes it easier and more likely for this to happen. Please take my word for it. It is absolutely true. And I think many women may not realize this.
Now, if a woman wants to be seen as a sex object, well, maybe this is of absolutely no concern. I presume, however, that this is not what women want.
As far as linking sex to procreation–this is the way God made us. If a person doesn’t believe in God, then this also is of no interest. But for those who have some interest in God, it is equally true for both men and women that sex, procreation, and marriage come together as a package deal. Sex, of course, is not meant to always produce a child. But, it is wrong to intentionally render ourselves infertile. Sex is too powerful and meaningful to be trivialized to being used for pleasure only. As good as pleasure is, sex it too awesome to be limited only to this. Only in marriage, and when open to life, does sex have its full meaning and its fullest humanity–its full dignity. Somewhere deep in our conscience human persons are given to know this–but rather dimly and quietly. It’s pretty easy for a culture to overlook it. Over time this awareness in our individual consciences can be covered over and drowned out until we are no longer aware of it on any level.
We can fool ourselves (or a fallen society can convince us over time)–both women and men–into believing that this proper context for a fully human sexuality is not the case. But that doesn’t change reality. (We can believe that if we put water in a car’s gas tank it will run fine; this will never work no matter how much we believe it). And it doesn’t make us truly able to find a deeply satisfying joy in our relationships with one another. The incredible gift of human sexuality, in all of its truest depths of meaning and power and significance, comes alive and flourishes in the sacred space of a lifelong marriage covenant.
So, I would not say that women who don’t believe this are operating with some sort of false consciousness (not sure what this would mean). Certainly, there are many women and men who think that it’s just fine to pursue contraceptive sex primarily for pleasure with no thought even for the possibility of new life being brought into the world. I would say, however, that the consciences of such people (without their clearly realizing this) have become tarnished–perhaps blinded in a way–in regard to sexuality.
The voice of our human conscience can become blinded in regard to many things in addition to sex. It happens often. Think of the many ways in which we human beings can come to accept, even relish, a lifestyle doing what for most of the rest of us is known as truly and objectively bad. But this doesn’t happen instantly. The tarnishing of the moral compass of our heart is a process. At some point we can become so tarnished that we forget the place in which our hearts began–that place of the innocence and purity of a child.
So, Megan I can’t argue that women who use contraception are operating with a false consciousness because, if I understand what you mean (and I’m not sure I do) I don’t think this is true. I would say that the consciences (not consciousness, which is related but not the same) of such women (and men who believe likewise) have at some point for a variety of reasons probably complicated and which includes the negative influence of our culture, become misguided–out of whack. Like a magnetic compass that no longer points north. It points somewhere, but it’s no longer accurate, no longer in correspondence with the geographic reality. A person can in full sanity and with a full and properly functioning consciousness use a faulty compass (trusting that it is working properly) and end up lost without knowing why. The same can happen with our moral compass.
Praxedes, I have no idea what you’re saying here, but if you’re comparing me to a proabort, I’d really like to know why. Thanks
Kel, Your statement to my being personally offended by the tradition of a man asking a father permission to marry his daughter was, “If people want to view that as misogynistic, then… well, pretty much, you can choose be offended when you seek to find offense“. I stated how I personally view this tradition but also stated that I respected your differing view.
I took your statement to mean that I am only offended by this tradition because I am looking to be offended by it. If you meant something different, please explain.
I was comparing your argument (not you) to that of similar proabort argument (not a proabort) i.e. “if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. My abortion doesn’t affect your life so you shouldn’t have an opinion on it.”
I am offended by this tradition because I have studied the history behind it and it rubs me the wrong way. This tradition did start because women were traded by men for material goods and livestock and it has nothing to do with Christianity. Some see this tradition differently now and some have never thought much about it. However, there are men (some who claim to be Christians) who take this tradition literally and run with it after the wedding is over.
I realize some women (and men) like this traditional, romantic view of dad giving permission to boyfriend and later dad’s giving the woman away to the husband at the wedding ceremony. My husband and I walked up the aisle together and I’m sure this offended some too the same way keeping my name offends some. We each have a right to our opinions and it seems you’re offended with me Kel because I am offended about the history of this tradition.
I too have studied the Disney movie’s (and cartoons such as Popeye) portrayals of stereotypical gender roles. It is interesting to watch for these roles in these movies. They have changed over the years. I believe these changes are for the better.
You can argue till you’re blue in the face that sons and daughters are the same/viewed the same, but they are not.
I have not argued this point at all, Kel so I am unsure why you are so upset. I pointed out that I disagree with you on the tradition of men getting permission from other men to marry women.
I see Christ’s example in that, not misogyny. I also see the natural inclination of a Daddy wanting to protect his children, especially his daughters.
Again, I see the tradition of getting permission from men to marry women as misogynic but won’t claim to speak for Christ on this tradition. Do women have the natural inclination of a Mommy to protect her children, especially her sons? I am raising both genders and feel equally protective of all my children and so does my husband (their bio father chooses to be involved as little as possible). I do see Christ’s and Mary’s example of providing for and protecting all of their children, irregardless of gender.
And many men who are “tired” of that role abandon their families and feel no obligation to love their wives and children and to provide for them emotionally as well as financially.
I don’t know but many men may just be tired of being put into a mold. I know I was tired because I didn’t fit into the mold my ex wanted me in. Maybe bmmg39 or other men will expand on this? I know spouses of both genders where good enough never seems to be good enough. However, divorce should never mean abandoning children.
I just see it as a form of respect to both the family and the girl in question, but I never said it was a requirement.
I just see it as a form of disrespect to the woman (hopefully she is over 18 and no longer a girl) in question but certainly do respect your differing view MiT. Thank goodness this tradition is no longer a requirement or I would have never gotten married, to say nothing of twice! :)
Sorry I got a bit off topic. Condoms make great water balloons. I think Pope Benedict XVI would agree. :)
I was comparing your argument (not you) to that of similar proabort argument (not a proabort) i.e. “if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. My abortion doesn’t affect your life so you shouldn’t have an opinion on it.”
No, I was stating that I felt you were making a mountain out of a molehill. Though I can see your perspective on the whole “property” thing, I think that sometimes our feminist sensibiliities (MINE included!) are easily offended by things because we have seen hurt inflicted by males and we tend to react very emotionally to things that other people don’t see as offensive at all. However, I think comparing what we were discussing to a pro-abortion argument is a stretch. :D As far as I know, no one’s life hangs in the balance in relation to our discussion.
We each have a right to our opinions and it seems you’re offended with me Kel because I am offended about the history of this tradition.
No, I’m not offended with you stating the history of the tradition. I was not ok, however, with being compared to a proabort. You’ve explained, so thanks for that.
I have not argued this point at all, Kel so I am unsure why you are so upset.
I should have clarified. I was speaking “you” in the general sense. Think of it more like “People can argue till they’re blue in the face, but here’s the truth….”
And just because I am arguing against your point doesn’t mean I’m upset. I’m not. You came across as quite combative. Are we reading each other’s “tones” properly? :D
I am raising both genders and feel equally protective of all my children and so does my husband (their bio father chooses to be involved as little as possible). I do see Christ’s and Mary’s example of providing for and protecting all of their children, irregardless of gender.
I feel equally protective of my children, as well, minus the Mary reference (not Catholic). However, when our daughter was born I just noticed a change in my husband. There was something more protective about the way he was with her. He doesn’t play the same way with her as he does the boys. It’s just a different sort of interaction. She’s a young lady, and he treats her that way. I don’t know how to explain it, but believe me, I see a difference.
I’d never have gotten married, either, if it was a requirement. :D No dad in the picture! However, I have heard of some men asking the mother for their blessing before a proposal as well. And I guess that’s how I view it: not as “asking for permission” but “asking for blessing” on the proposal and idea of marriage to that individual. Of course, the woman could still marry the man without the blessing of her parents (I know a young woman who is doing that very thing and her parents really have no reason for their objection other than the mother said “He isn’t what I would have chosen for you.” Yeah. The MOM said that, not the dad).
Anyway – hopefully that will clarify a few things. :)
MIT – you’re welcome! :D
Hi Kel,
I see it too. I have one daughter and three sons. All are loved and cared for and cherished.
My husband is protective of all of his children but I see something tender with his daughter which melts my heart. He is giving our daughter what I never had. It is a joy to see a father that is involved and committed to his wife and his children.
PS
I pity the fools that honk outside our home for our daughter! heh
He is giving our daughter what I never had. It is a joy to see a father that is involved and committed to his wife and his children.
Amen, Carla. I feel the same way. :)
Here is an excellent commentary on the Pope’s remarks by a Catholic priest, Fr. Robert Barron. It applies well to this discussion. Please take a look.
http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/November-2010/Recent-Events-Father-Barron-comments-on-the-Pope-.aspx
Thanks for pointing our Fr. Barron’s commentary Scott. The Pope’s book is the next one on my book club’s list. I’m looking forward to reading it.
My point is that traditionalist women and feminist women will argue back and forth about whether some tradition or mindset is good or bad or offensive or not offensive to women, without ever stopping to think about how it affects men. That includes the stereotype of man as main provider and protector (and women as nurturer). PSAs for, say, “get your prostate checked” will keep emphasizing that men should take care of themselves only so that they can take care of their families, too. And there’s no reason more women can’t be the ones to ask men out or ask them to marry them.
And there’s no reason more women can’t be the ones to ask men out or ask them to marry them
I never said a woman couldn’t ask a man to marry her. I said I appreciated the fact that my husband asked my dad for his permission to ask for my hand in marriage.
Well Scott, thank you for sharing your viewpoint on contraception. It is good to know that Woman who does not want to risk conceiving every time She has sex (with a husband or partner or otherwise) is merely degrading Herself in the eyes of Man. Is She also opening the doorway to abuse if She wears a seatbelt while driving? Or takes cholesterol-reducing medication? Don’t these preventive acts betray a lack of trust in God?
The problem with your viewpoint–and yes, I am telling you what’s wrong with it–is that it is arbitrary. In what other realm of human conduct does Catholic teaching have as much sway as human sexual activity? Focusing on sex ensures any regulatory body tight control over a population, especially that most dangerous of forces, female sexuality. This is an issue about control, wrapped up in the language of morality and fancy prose.
Hello again. Megan, you mention Catholic teaching. Out of curiosity, I did a search on the uses of the word “Catholic” on this thread (took a while, there are a lot) to see how many times I have used the word “Catholic” in my comments. I used it once. And that was to refer to Fr. Robert Barron as a “Catholic priest.”
I am Catholic and I love the teachings of the Church. They are a light for illuminating the path to a life of the greatest possible fulfillment and meaningfulness that can be had. That being said, I have not been in this thread taking the approach of saying that this or that is what the Catholic Church teaches. I have mentioned God once or twice. But I have mostly tried to simply illuminate my point of view regarding how contraception and sterilization effect our relationships from the perspective of human life and experience. You are certainly free to say that you disagree with my account of human experience. But, please note that I have primarily been talking about dispositions within the hearts and minds of men–how they regard women within their own interior selves–and how this is effected by contraception and sterilization. I have also tried to be careful not to make all-embracing statements, but to say that contraception or sterilization make this degraded attitude toward women in the hearts of men that I have been talking about more likely. I don’t claim that it is a certainty.
A discussion about the teaching of the Catholic Church is very worthwhile. But that is not what I have been doing in my own remarks. You disagree with my viewpoint. But, I think that I have given enough explanation, based in human experience, to say that it is not arbitrary.
And, it’s interesting that you claim Catholic teaching has lots of influence. What’s wrong with that? Anyone is free to disregard it if they want. Including you. If you pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a compendium of the major teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church, you will see there is a whole lot of stuff in there that is not about sex. In fact, most of it is not about sex. The people who always focus on sex are those who reject the teaching of Catholicism and can’t seem to stop bringing up their disagreement over and over again. The Church simply says, this is the teaching of the Church. As Catholics, this is part of what we believe. Clarity and consistency are wonderful things. The idea that the Catholic Church by being clear and consistent about what she believes to be true and by going to the effort to proclaim what she believes to all who would listen thereby somehow has “tight control over a population,” is ridiculous. What population do you think the Catholic Church has “tight control” over? I don’t know what news sources you are reading. But if they are anything like mine, perhaps we might agree that the behaviors of cultures all over the world do not indicate there is any such thing as tight control over any of them by the Catholic Church.
No one is more free than a person who chooses to embrace the teaching of the Catholic Church and, with the help of God’s grace, tries to shape his life in accord with it. This has absolutely been my experience (as a convert to Catholicism). And no bishop or priest ever forced me to believe anything (indeed, no one can truly force anyone to believe anything in particular). There are no Catholic morality police on street-corners reporting people to the Pope for bad behavior.
It’s not at all about control. It’s about true freedom, authentic joy, and genuine fulfillment and happiness in this life and the next. The Church doesn’t claim any power to force anyone to believe what she teaches. She claims that she is preserving and handing on the person and the teaching of Jesus Christ. She dares to propose to the world what is true and most authentically fulfilling in human life because she carries within her the teaching and the life of Christ. And Jesus Christ, being God, knows what is best for our lives.
We can freely reject Christ. And we can freely reject the teaching of the Catholic Church which claims to speak in the name of Christ. It’s up to each of us.
Megan, your remark about the Catholic Church having sway is really, it seems to me, more about Christ. Why? Because it is Jesus Christ who claimed to be God. It is He who taught us about how to truly lead a fully human life. Now, if He is not God, then anything any Christian Church says can simply be ignored immediately. So, if any person, first off, does not believe Christ was God, then that is why they have no sense of obligation to pay heed to the teaching of any Christian Church. If, however, a person does believe Jesus Christ was God and that He taught us about how we are best to live a fully human life, then the next question is–who now possesses (if anyone) this teaching of Christ without error, without any degradation or loss of its integrity?
The Catholic Church claims that she is that body, that living community of disciples of Christ going back to the time of His life, who possesses in full the teaching of Christ from the time He gave it to her and who has preserved and handed it on to successive generations without error, degradation, or loss of integrity. If this is true, then the claim of the Catholic Church to speak the full truth about man and God does not originate with the Church, but with Christ Himself–in the very fact that He Himself did teach with clarity and conviction many firm truths about human life and about God and the relationship between God and man.
If you don’t believe the Catholic Church is that living community which has preserved without loss or degradation the teaching of Christ, then you can say so and on that basis disregard whatever you want that the Church teaches. The Church has no power to stop you from doing so.
So, on the topic of Catholic teaching specifically, it is relevant to establish, first, whether or not a person believes Jesus Christ is God incarnate, became a man, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. If not, of course such a person would not necessarily have compelling reasons to believe the Catholic Church about anything. Her claim is to speak for Christ and by His continuing guidance. If He is not God, the Church becomes merely a human institution proclaiming a false religion.
If a person does believe Jesus Christ is God, was dead and was resurrected, then it becomes a matter of ascertaining who has the mandate from Christ to continue to teach in His name? Anyone? No one? If there is such a community, then, perhaps someone who believes in Christ might be obliged to seek out that community and so to receive the teaching of Christ from it.
The Catholic Church speaks to all, but to propose, not impose. And in the case of those people for whom she speaks with authority (such as for myself being Catholic)–that authority is not forced upon us, but freely embraced by us, as a logical consequence of our belief that she possesses the mandate given by Christ to teach and sanctify in His name. And He gave the Church this mandate for the sake of our salvation–our eternal joy–our ultimate bliss and highest possible fulfillment as human persons.
Hi Megan.
“Is She also opening the doorway to abuse if She wears a seatbelt while driving? Or takes cholesterol-reducing medication? Don’t these preventive acts betray a lack of trust in God?”
Here is why these are not analogous situations. Because in the case of artificial contraception we are talking about taking an action which purposefully thwarts the PROPER FUNCTION of a particular action (the conjugal act) while in the above situations we are talking about taking in action which is IN ACCORD with the proper function of a particular action. Thus, taking cholesterol-reducing medication actually works WITH the proper function of teh body to bring teh cholesterol levels down to normal so that the body functions the way it should. However, with the case of contraception, the pill (or whatever) does not work WITH the proper function of the reproductive system but AGAINST it.
Still arbitrary. Sometimes when fighting infection the body goes into overdrive, and there are medications targeting not only the pathogenic agent, but also the body’s immune response. In these instances, which aren’t exactly rare, medication is working against the body’s “natural,” primary reaction. And I put “natural” in quotations because if it were truly left up to nature, those with any sort of defect would be thrown to the wolves. Modern medicine has truly changed our defintion of “natural.” And, in any case, I was talking about barrier methods. Male and female condoms, which don’t change any physiological aspect of the body.
And no Scott, there’s no arguing with an absolute. I can’t argue against Authentic Truth or happiness because it can’t be empirically verified. So, in a sense, you win. But we live in a world where people are free to choose their own paths to enlightenment, or ignorance, and these paths can be just as compatible with good health. Sometimes more so. And I think you know the Church does more than merely put its Word out there for people to consume. It does impose. Again, if religious leaders (of any type–thinking of imams opposing vaccination for religious reasons) try to effect public policy, especially public health policy, then critique is warranted.
I pity the fools that honk outside our home for our daughter! heh
: D !! Right on, Carla. Lazy kids like that need a sound beating… : P
Hi Megan.
“Still arbitrary. Sometimes when fighting infection the body goes into overdrive, and there are medications targeting not only the pathogenic agent, but also the body’s immune response. In these instances, which aren’t exactly rare, medication is working against the body’s “natural,” primary reaction. And I put “natural” in quotations because if it were truly left up to nature, those with any sort of defect would be thrown to the wolves. Modern medicine has truly changed our defintion of “natural.” ”
I think you’re still confused about what we mean by natural. We don’t mean by natural simply that which is found in nature. By natural. we mean anything that acts in accord with proper function. So your example is perfectly fine. The point is we are attempting to restore proper function to teh body. So in that case, something like a prosthetic arm would be considered natural because it acts in accord with the nature of the body (what the purpose of teh body is) while something like cancer would not be natural since it acts against proper function and essence of the body. So the paradigm that we are working with here is proper function- the body doing what it is supposed to do and working teh way it should work. I do not think that holding to a framework of working in accord with proper function is at all arbitrary.
“And, in any case, I was talking about barrier methods. Male and female condoms, which don’t change any physiological aspect of the body.”
An action does not need to change a physiological aspect of the body in order to act against proper function. Again, the idea is that there is an action, it has a purpose or nature, and you take an action to THWART that very purpose or nature rather than to act in accord with it as in teh case of seat belts or cholesterol-lowering medication.
“Lazy kids like that need a sound beating”
Amen, bro!