Human reproduction, its context and concept is not everything. It’s important, no doubt. But it is emphatically not everything. What it is, is one part of are humanity – requiring restraint and thought.

Wow, really? Thanks for enlightening me.

Vatican? Condemning stuff? I'm reminded of this headline in The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32847

condeming metrosexual males? well the pope is more into 'bling' i suppose....

Why insist on seeing the glass almost empty, when you can celebrate what they did leave in the glass?

By contrast, the Vatican positively advocates masturbation.

Dear Sarabeth,

Please enlighten everyone... you said,

"By contrast, the Vatican positively advocates masturbation."

It does? Please tell me the article in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that promotes masturbation.

You may want to flip to Paragraph 2352 of your personal copy (which you undoubtedly know so well) and see what it reads there.

If you are going to post something, you might want to make sure you are correct first. Just a thought...

==========

Dear Jessica,

You obviously have issues with the Catholic Church's teachings...however, I do think that the appropriate title for this blog should be, "The Vatican Condemns...Everything That Causes Human Misery"

Maybe, just maybe, in your open-mindedness, consider that the Church knows a little bit more than all of us about human suffering -- and wants to keep folks from making terrible mistakes...

soda:

First, Sarabeth said "by contrast". In other words, it's a wry comment about them having left out masturbation from their list of rants.

Second, the Church has quite a reputation for knowing quite a bit about human suffering. Particularly, causing it. Nothing speaks of God's Love quite like the Inquisition. Or Papa Ratzi's apologetics for the Germans that participated in the Nazi movement -- of which he was one (as an aside, I do believe that there are a number of valuable moral lessons a good man might have taken away from that experience, but "we had no choice" isn't one of them).

If you're trying to argue that contraception causes more human suffering than unwanted children, that abortion causes more human suffering than unwanted children, that fertility clinics cause more human suffering than the de-facto not being able to have children you want, or that two people who love each other not being afforded the legal protections of marriage by some fluke of their chromosomes is somehow not causing human misery, you'll need a bit more support than calling everything the current pope is freaking out about "terrible mistakes".

This isn't to say that the Church hasn't had its good moments. Its benevolence is hardly above suspicion, however, as you would like to imply. Nor is it warranted to assume that the Church knows better than all of us on any social matter. Particularly with its own track record.

Dear Zed,

Yeah, I get it, hence my "wry" comment to Sarabeth about her vast knowledge of Catholic teaching. If you read the article she is referring to, then you'll see a reference to the Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae which is very clear about the Church's stance on sexual sin - including masturbation.

In other words, nothing was really "left in the glass" as she puts it, so there is no "contrast"...but thanks anyway.

Wow, so I guess you are one of those people that believes everything the media tells you about Catholics - or rather, what those conspiracy theorist websites tell you.

Well, here are some facts for you:

While the Inquisition and the Holocaust (which included the deaths of Catholics too) are great atrocities, there is no greater human atrocity in this world than abortion. 200,000 killings per year, 46.5 million abortion deaths on record since the early 70's can never match up to the Inquisition, Holocaust or any other factoid you can conjure up. AND that's not to mention the side-effects; suicidal depression from guilt, death of the mother due to complications from the procedure, loss of reproductive organs...the list is endless. You want to talk about terrible mistakes and human suffering, well, there you have it.

I won't sit here and argue the silly things with you like how the 0.4% Catholic priests out there caused untold anguish to their victims; or how you seem to think that Pope Benedict was a Nazi war criminal. It's absurd! By the way, there are far more teachers and sports coaches practicing harm to kids than you can even imagine, go after them, the numbers are staggering.

I think the real point you are missing, Zed, is that sin causes suffering, spiritual sickness, whether or not you choose to believe it. Your arguement for contraception, while using the ubiquitous unwanted children story, may seem compelling to those who share the same viewpoint. The truth is: the number of people who want children and the number of successful adoptions far outweighs your Cider House Rules claims by far.

Ask yourself, why can't people simply be responsible? If you don't want children, don't get married, don't have sex. Seems pretty simple, right? Nah, we'd prefer to have as much sex as we want, with whomever we want, with as many partners as we want and not face any consequences. Isn't it the irresponsible people who are really causing the suffering to unwanted children? The aborted are unwanted children too. Human trash, right?

But, then again, you know better about human suffering, Zed. I guess condom use, popping pills and abortion are much better, safer alternatives. They are the panacea to human sufffering.

Nah, we'd prefer to have as much sex as we want, with whomever we want, with as many partners as we want and not face any consequences.

And why, pray tell, would it be such a bad thing if we could?

soda:

You may wish to refresh yourself on the contents of the contents of the Humanae Vitae, which fails to mention masturbation even once. Fortunately, the Vatican has it online for your review:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Out of curiosity, had you ever read it before today? I had, actually, though I admit it was long enough ago that I had forgotten the details, and actually had to check, myself, to make sure that masturbation wasn't one of the covered topics.

For reference, my father is a Catholic seminarian, trained as a priest, though he did not take the final vows. I am less well trained, though a student of both religion and history, as well as science. Your aspersions on my education or sources of information are badly misplaced.

Some notes on your "facts":

There are practically no abortion "killings". To kill someone, that someone has to be individually alive first. A fetus doesn't even have any synaptic connections until around 28 weeks, by which point abortions are vanishingly rare, and almost always for the safety of the mother. And synaptic connections are only necessary for any kind of consciousness or humanity -- they aren't sufficient. This marks the earliest possible point at which a fetus could be considered any kind of person, but frankly, the science says that it doesn't happen for quite some time after. The aborted aren't unwanted children. They're unwanted tissue growths.

While you are going on the list of ills resulting from abortions, I suggest you go and look up the ills associated with unwanted children: domestic violence, increased crime rates of other natures, death of the mother during childbirth that is more frequent than death from abortion (note that this makes having abortions actually safer for pregnant women than not having them), loss of reproductive organs, loss of dreams, loss of personal development, neglect of other children already born, abandonment by one's mate... the list is endless.

Suffering doesn't exist in a social vacuum; one must compare the alternatives.

As for Ratzinger, I don't condemn him for being a member of the Hitler Youth in the 1940s, a historical fact that is not disputed. I condemn him for categorically stating "resistance was impossible", even as he lived in a neighborhood that was regularly searched for members of the local resistance movements, that often succeeded in hiding would-be victims. As I said, there are a number of things a better man could have learned from that experience, that he apparently did not. There are even some great Catholic foundationstones that can be debated around a similar point: whether, even though possible, it would have been required to resist if ultimately futile, which leads naturally into what constitutes futility. If you want to have a further conversation with me on this privately, I'm not hard to find, and the Catholic position on futility is one that has long fascinated me. But we're moving away from the point, which is that Ratzinger doesn't exactly have the credentials for an authority on the prevention of suffering. Are you even familiar with his history?

I'm always fascinated by the "why can't people be responsible" argument, because it presupposes the conclusion that birth control is irresponsible. It beggars the imagination to think that the only "responsible" alternative to having children is personal suffering. The Flagellants were eventually condemned as Heretics, and yet their beliefs seem to live on still. Let me go so far as to suggest a counterclaim: it is highly irresponsible to add children to this overburdened world. Period, full stop. Given that assumption, why is the Church so irresponsible about procreation? Even for married couples, the Church seems to want a constant stream of babies, chewing up our remaining resources, choking each other by sheer numbers.

See how unfair it is to assume your conclusions? We could probably have an interesting discussion about the value of procreation in the modern world, but only if the conclusions aren't predetermined.

We can have a debate about the social ills of unstable relationships, one night stands, the medical risks of casual sex, and I might even end up surprising you by how much we can agree on some of these things. But abstinence is an unnatural act, far more unnatural than condoms, which merely mimic any one of a number of natural conditions that cause infertility. It has never been a solution that worked at any time in history. By all means, let's ask "Why can't people be responsible?" The answer is that it's because you've defined "responsibility" in a way that is so unnatural that almost nobody can live up to it. Historically, few have, even among Catholics. History is full of forced, abusive marriages and dead children of Catholic parents, and being Pope doesn't make you immune to lust, either. I remember from my study of the lives of the popes, one was even infamous for having thrown regular orgies, documented by one of his secretaries, though I'd have to go dig out my old references to find out which one again.

There are good popes and bad popes, just as there are good priests and bad priests. The point of all of this is not to demonize the Church, as you seem to have assumed, but to point out that its infallibility is a myth. Think for yourself.

Condoms, medicine, and yes, even abortion are in fact much better, safer alternatives. They're not a panacea -- but the alternative is much worse.

Hi Zed,

I just got done reading your book here... I'm going to try my best to not write one myself.

First off, I'm not even gonna touch the abortion part of it in fear that you will only grow deeper roots in the whole pro-abortion movement. I'll pray that you someday change your opinion on when life truly begins. However, I would like to see your slanted statistics regarding the miserable family lives of American children when you have a chance.

Whatever your educational background is (history, religious education - although you don't strike me as an expert in Catholic theology) I have no doubt that your information gathering is highly biased towards your views. To be fair, perhaps mine is too. But, unlike you, I am not in the practice of looking to men with varying opinions and agendas for the truth. Remember, many educators out there, even the ones in Catholic Universities, are not in union with Rome on teaching doctrine or Biblical facts. Your miseducation in Catholicism is not the Church's fault.

Regarding our masturbation discussion, I'm guessing that you probably went to the Humanae Vitae homepage and did a quick search for "masturbation" and your search yielded no results. It's one thing to simply read Humanae Vitae but certainly another to read it and understand its meaning clearly. What you should note, in this brilliant encyclical, is the overwhelming theme that every sexual act in a marriage should be for 'unitive and procreative' purposes. Where is the unity and procreativity in masturbation? I guess you failed to read between the lines. But I am not surprised, you want to hold on to your sexual freedom ever-so tightly. Regardless, I think we both know the Church's stance on masturbation, it's crystal clear.

If not, you may want to print out that Humanae Vitae page, grab a highlighter and underline this paragraph:

"The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile."

Note the words "independent of their will" there. You might want to look up the meaning of the word "chaste" while you're at it. OH, and not the dictionary's definition, the Church's definition of chastity.

I think the most disturbing part of your discourse is the irony that you project here. After all, we are blogging on a site that is so against folks creating stereotypes, that they inadvertently create them when attempting to defend themselves. And here you are -- implying that Pope Benedict is running the Vatican like a Nazi and charging that he could have easily escaped from a corrupt authoritarian regime that so many found impossible to leave -- so many that they ended up in the gas chamber. Try explaining that to the Jewish Community - that their ancestors should have "easily escaped". How ridiculous! Did you live Pope Benedict's life? Do you have personal knowledge about how easy it was for people to leave?

And let's be clear, you do condemn him. Condemnation is holding blame afterall. If you thought he was blameless, then why your subsequent hostility towards him?

Lastly, my theologian friend, you are mistaking infallibility with impeccability. A common arguement amongst Athiests and Agnostics. Your rogue Pope reference, by the way, is probably about Pope Gregory.

Just for your information, papal infallibility is only pertaining to the moral teachings of the Church. There are very strict circumstances when a Pope is infallible. It certainly does not mean that a Pope is faultless. He would have to be a robot for that to be the case.

By the way, I DO think for myself, that's why I made the choice to remain a Catholic. When you think how blunt and honest the Church is, it is very humbling. It's not a cafeteria, like so many think it is. It's all or nothing. I take all its teachings to heart, as difficult and hard it is to follow, there is no mistaking the truth.

I think this arguement is getting stale. Reply if you like, I'll give you the last word.

Hexy,

You said:
"And why, pray tell, would it be such a bad thing if we could?"

My simple reply to your statement is: because we can't. We live in reality, maybe you don't. There are consequences to having sex whenever, with whomever and however we want. Look around the world and see the results.

Well, when I look around the world, I see the results of economic domination by a very small portion of the population, atrocities that proceed from the infliction of gender roles, conflicts and ignorance promoted by organized religion, misery inflicted by those in power striving to make their moral standards apply to everyone, and the human addiction to heirarchy proceeding unchecked.

Consensual, respectful and mutually joyful sex dosen't seem to be causing problems whatsoever.

Methinks you're a bit simplistic in your analysis, soda

Zed, I said:
"Your rogue Pope reference, by the way, is probably about Pope Gregory."

I was incorrect, it was Pope Alexander VI that I meant, Gregory the Great was actually just that, great.

"Consensual, respectful and mutually joyful sex dosen't seem to be causing problems whatsoever.

Methinks you're a bit simplistic in your analysis, soda

Jenna, what kind of dream world do you live in? Me thinks you should have another looksie.