Contraception Outside Marriage

A reader writes:

Please help me understand the Church’s teaching on this issue.  Is it ok for a catholic single person to use contraceptives, if they do not want to end a sexual relationship with their partner, to avoid bringing a child into the situation?  A priest said that God is not in this sexual act, so they cannot be coming between God and the child is not part of God’s will.  (which I know God didn’t will the child to come into the world this way, but he permits the child to be born).

Here is what Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae:

We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means [Section 14].

There are no qualifiers in this about this situation only pertaining to the case of married couples. What your friend is doing is disrupting the way God designed human sexuality to work.

Specifically, your friend is doing two things:

  1. Separating the procreative aspect of the sexual act from the act itself (i.e., contracepting), and
  2. Separating the sexual act from the marital context in which it is meant to occur (i.e., fornicating).

Your friend’s behavior thus is "coming between [them and] God"–and in two ways. They are compounding the sin of fornication by adding to it the sin of contraception.

Indeed, their use of contraception is facilitating their fornication. You note that the use of contraceptives is because your friend does not want "to end a sexual relationship with their partner, to avoid bringing a child into the situation." The contraception is thus facilitating your friend’s rejection of God’s will by letting her avoid making the choice between (a) ending the sexual relationship or (b) having a baby by a man she isn’t married to. The contraception is thus a sin in itself and it compounds the sin of fornication by lengthening its duration.

What your friend needs to do is to resolve to do what is right: End the sexual relationship and not have sex until marriage and, even then, not to use contraception.

The above-described sins are grave matter, meaning that if they are mortal if done with adequate knowledge and consent.

What the priest said was wrong and was a disservice to your friend.

God will hold him accountable for it.

Marriage Involvement

A reader writes:

About 5 or 6 years ago my friend started coming back to Church.

[One of her Catholic daughters pursued] a relationship with a divorced father of two and is now getting married. Mom disapproves of the marriage because he is divorced and it is not a Catholic wedding but she has accepted their plans because she know there is nothing she can do about it and does not want to ostrasize her daughter from her.

The question is, can she at all participate in any plans with the wedding or will this come accross as a approval? They asked her to find a blessing to be read at the begining of the ceremony. I thought that seemed a little unusal since the daughter knows how her mother feels. The mother has been praying alot and attending mass alot in order to bring about a change of heart in her daughter.

I could not recommend her involvement in this wedding. There are two problems with it:

  1. The gentleman is divorced and, since you don’t mention him having received an annulment, I presume he doesn’t have one. That being the case, he must be assumed to be actually married to his first wife and thus not free to marry your friend’s daughter.
  2. Since the daughter is a Catholic who, so far as you say, has not defected from the Church by a formal act, she is bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage or obtain a dispensation from it. Since you don’t mention a dispensation, I assume that she doesn’t have one. If that is the case then the marriage will be invalid due to lack of form.

The marriage thus looks to be invalid on two grounds, and I cannot recommend the participation of individuals in any marriage presumed to be invalid as their involvement constitutes a kind of false witness.

On the other hand, if the gentleman has received an annulment from the Catholic Church and if the daughter has obtained a dispensation from form then the marriage will be presumably valid. In that case, her participation would be perfectly legitimate.

Hope this helps!

Ethical Question Concerning Conjoined Twins

A reader writes:

You may have heard of the recent surgery to remove a second head from a ten month old girl. 

I found this very troubling for a couple of reasons.

1. The kept on refering to the "second head".  Looking at the photograph and the fact that "it" could smile and blink, I would be inclined to refer to "it" as a conjoined twin.

2.  By refering to the conjoined twin as a second head, it seemed as if they were trying to remove or ignore the personhood of the conjoined twin.

With all of that in mind, was it morally licit for them to have the twins seperated knowing that the not fully formed twin would surely die.

If the unintended consequence of the seperation is the guaranteed death of one of the children is it still permissable to have the seperation surgery.

First, I agree that the situation here is not merely a case of a "second head" but of a conjoined twin who happens to (a) be joined at the top of the head and (b) lacks a body below the neck.

VIEW THE CHILDREN (PRE-OPERATION) HERE.

(I won’t reproduce the photo here since it’s a little disturbing.)

The fact that the body-less child is able to blink and smile makes her personhood easier to demonstrate, but the fact that she is a head with a brain shows it as well. A head is not just an extra organ. If a child were born with an extra leg, you could remove the extra leg without it leading to the death of a person, but removing a head with a brain and not sustaining its life somehow results in the death of that person.

Consequently, it could be done only under those conditions in which it would be morally licit to disconnect on person from another knowing that this would lead to the death of the disconnected person.

Are there such conditions?

The closest well-thought-through situation is that of a mother with a tubal pregnancy. In such cases the child will definitely die when it grows too large for the fallopian tube to contain it and it will cause a hemmorage that threatens the mother’s life as well.

Catholic moralists have been debating about whether the law of double-effect may apply to the case of removing an ectopic child in the case of a tubal pregnancy. For a survey of the debate SEE HERE (scroll down). A consensus seems to have emerged that at least one type of surgical procedure (known as a salpingectomy) might be morally licit to deal with the situation.

One group of conservative moral theologians, including William May and William Smith, hold that the thing that makes a salpingectomy possible is that it is a procedure done on the mother rather than on the child. Specifically, the segment of the mother’s fallopian tube is cut out that happens to contain the child. The child will die as a result of this procedure (until such time as we can transplant the child to the womb or to an artificial womb), but the procedure does not directly kill the child (in contrast to other procedures, such as injecting methotrexate to stop the child’s placenta from developing and functioning. Since a salpingecotomy does not directly kill the child, it is argued to be potentially justifiable under the law of double effect (i.e., for a porportionate reason an action can be taken that is licit in itself though it will have a foreseen but unintended evil side effect).

If it were the case that the bodiless-twin was certain to die or posed a grave threat to the life of the bodied-twin (which would also result in the death of the bodiless-twin) then it might be possible to perform a procedure on the bodied-twin that would disconnect it from the bodiless-twin in such a way that the death of the bodiless-twin is an unintended but foreseen side effect, analogous to the case of a salpingectomy.

Unfortunately, the story give me no reason to think that the bodiless-twin poses any threat to the life of the bodied-twin. As far as I know, they could live a normal life while remaining conjoined. The bodied-twin’s heart might have to develop a little more to cover the extra blood pumping to the bodiless-twin, but no evidence is presented that this would be problematic.

Consequently, I have no reason to regard the severing of the bodiless-twin as anything other than murder.

READ THE (DISGUSTING) STORY. [WARNING: Also has picture.]

Release The Hounds!

FoxhuntCertain U.K. yahoos have now passed a law outlawing foxhunting.

Actually, it’s worse than that.

They’ve passed a law to ban the use of dogs in hunting.

It’s apparently "wrong."

Yeah.

Dogs can go out and hunt naturally, as their instincts tell them to, but humans can’t faciliate dog’s natural instincts because that’s "wrong."

Uh-huh.

To quote Ford Prefect: "YOU’RE A LOAD OF USELESS BLOODY LOONIES!!!"

Now, I should note that the last comment was not directed at all people in the U.K. It’s only direted to those who are yahoos. Not everybody in the U.K. is a yahoo. For example, I’d extent a special holler to those entrerprising ex-hunters who, lest their dogs suffer from lack of exercise, have started to get gussied up with the red coats and all and then hop on their horses and take the dogs out for a brisk run and everything stays well within the law as long as no foxes happen to cross their paths . . . in which case canine instincts might take over . . . through no fault at all of the ex-hunters, of course!

GET THE (STUPID) STORY.

Powerline (cowboy hat tip to them) notes:

This is one time when we can say "It can’t happen here," and really mean it. America’s hunters are too powerful; I suspect they’re also better armed than their English counterparts. I think it’s time for the NRA to open a branch in England [SOURCE].

New Rule!

Just made an addition to DA RULZ:

20. When Jimmy is answering a pastoral question (i.e., for a person asking about an actual rather than a hypothetical situation) that can be phrased  in the form "Is it morally licit to do X?", do not contradict Jimmy in the comments box. People asking pastoral questions on moral subjects often feel very disoriented and confused if they get a debate rather than an answer on a sensitive question about a situation they, a friend, or a family member is involved in. For the peace of mind of the person who asked the question, challenges to such answers need to be handled a different way. Instead of using the comments box to pose your challenge, e-mail Jimmy. If you win him over, he’ll make a correction and notify the person who asked the question. Comments violating this policy will be deleted. Widespread violation of this policy will result in the comments box being turned off for such questions.

Do Not Open Until Christmas1960

Y’know how Sr. Lucia wrote on the envelope that contained the third secret that it wasn’t to be opened until 1960? Here’s the straight story on that:

Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the “secret” to the then [1944] Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: “Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date?” Sister Lucia replied: “It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope [SOURCE: The Message of Fatima (Vatican doc.)].

The reason the Vatican had to ask Sr. Lucia to clarify this is that the apparition rumor-net had been circulating allegations that Mary herself had commanded that the message be "read to the world" by "1960 at the latest." (The apparition rumor-net is second only to the papal rumor-net in rumor generating capacity.) These allegations were then used to denounce John XXIII (pope in 1960) and every subsequent pope for not announcing the secret to the world "as Mary had commanded."

Now that we know the straight story, it serves as a good caution to all of us to CHECK OUR FACTS INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING RUMORS!!! (Unfortunately, the advent of the blogosphere may not play the same fact-checking function for the apparition and papal rumor-nets as it does for the MSM.)

That being said, I had a few thoughts recently about why the third secret was best kept under wraps until 1960 (and even after):

  1. The third secret was written down January 3, 1944, in the midst of World War II. Since the third secret contains a vision of a devastated city and a large number of people, including the pope, apparently being killed, if it had been released in 1944 it likely would have been interpreted as a prophecy of the events of World War II instead of the accurate interpretation of it as pertaining to the events of World War III (the Cold War). Indeed, Pius XII already thought that Hitler was going to have him kidnapped, and as we’ve recently learned Hitler did order the pope to be kidnapped (but the general didn’t carry out the order). If Pius had read it in 1944, he likely would have thought (incorrectly) that he would be martyred by Hitler.
  2. Since Sr. Lucia already sensed that the third secret pertains to the part of the second secret where it is mentioned that "Russia will spread its errors," she deferred its opening to 1960, a date that she intuited needed to be reached for it to be properly understood. Indeed, by that time the Cold War was under way and the threat posed by Russia was well understood.
  3. It’s even good that the message was not announced to the world at that time. If it had been it might have resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy of a pope being killed (i.e., some nujob might have taken it into his nogging to off the pope and thus fulfill the third secret).
  4. It’s also good that it wasn’t announced because the assassination attempt on John Paul II did not occur until May 13, 1981. If the secret had been known publicly beforehand then we would not be able as clearly to see this date as linking it to Fatima (May 13 was the first appearance of Our Lady of Fatima) since we wouldn’t be able to be sure that the would-be assassin (or his paymasters) didn’t know this and didn’t engineer it to occur on that date because of the third secret.
  5. It’s even good that, though others had read the third secret previously, John Paul II had not read it before the assassination attempt. At first he did not see the connection between the May 13 assassination attempt and Fatima, but when he read the third secret afterwards, the scales fell from his eyes (figuratively!) and he credited Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life. This helped motivate him to perform the consecration of Russia (and, for good measure, the rest of the world) in 1984.

This consecration, coupled with John Paul II’s role in the end of the Cold War, may have averted a nuclear war that might otherwise have ben the terminus of the U.S.-Soviet conflict (note the third secret’s reference to a angel’s flaming sword about to set the world on fire but stopped by Mary’s intervention).

It’s interesting to observe that the secret of Fatima addressed each of the first three world wars:

  • [Addressing World War I:] "If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end. . . . "
  • [Addressing World War II:] " . . . but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI."
  • [Addressing World War III:] "If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church."

Unfortunatley, it said nothing about World War IV (the War on Terror), which we are now in the midst of. We know this because in the wake of September 11th and the start of World War IV,

The content of the interview held between the Vatican representative and Sister Lucia in the convent of Coimbra, Portugal, where she resided, was made public by the Vatican press office on Dec. 20, 2001.

The text of the document states: "In recent months, especially following the sad events of the September 11 terrorist attacks, articles appeared in newspapers alleging new revelations by Sister Lucia, announcements of letters of warning to the Pope, and apocalyptic reinterpretations of the Fatima message."

"Moreover, emphasis was placed on the suspicion that the Holy See had not published the entire text of the third part of the secret, and some ‘Fatimist’ movements have repeated the accusation that the Holy Father has yet to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary," the document continues.

As a result, the Vatican note clarifies, it was considered necessary that Archbishop Bertone go personally "to clarify and obtain direct information from the visionary."

The meeting was held in the presence of Father Luis Kondor, vice postulator of the cause of Blessed Francisco and Jacinta (the other Fatima visionaries), and of the prioress of St. Teresa’s Carmelite Convent.

The conversation took place on the afternoon of that Nov. 17 and lasted more than two hours. Sister Lucia, then 94, "was in great form — lucid and vivacious," the Vatican envoy said.

The meeting addressed the question of the third part of the secret of Fatima. The Portuguese religious said that she had read "carefully and meditated on the fascicle published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirms everything that is written," the Vatican statement noted.

When the archbishop explained that there are doubts that part of the secret remains unknown, Sister Lucia replied: "Everything has been published; there are no more secrets."

"If I had received new revelations, I would not have communicated them to anyone, but I would have told them directly to the Holy Father," the religious added.

There was then talk about the statements of Nicholas Gruner, a Canadian priest suspended "a divinis," who is collecting signatures insisting that the Pope finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and alleging that this has never been done.

Sister Lucia told the archbishop: "The Carmel community has rejected the forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the consecration requested by Our Lady was done in 1984, and it has been accepted in heaven" [SOURCE.]

Take that, rumor-net!

READ MY PIECE ON THE THIRD SECRET.

READ THE VATICAN DOC ANNOUNCING THE THIRD SECRET.

Do Not Open Until Christmas1960

Y’know how Sr. Lucia wrote on the envelope that contained the third secret that it wasn’t to be opened until 1960? Here’s the straight story on that:

Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the “secret” to the then [1944] Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: “Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date?” Sister Lucia replied: “It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope [SOURCE: The Message of Fatima (Vatican doc.)].

The reason the Vatican had to ask Sr. Lucia to clarify this is that the apparition rumor-net had been circulating allegations that Mary herself had commanded that the message be "read to the world" by "1960 at the latest." (The apparition rumor-net is second only to the papal rumor-net in rumor generating capacity.) These allegations were then used to denounce John XXIII (pope in 1960) and every subsequent pope for not announcing the secret to the world "as Mary had commanded."

Now that we know the straight story, it serves as a good caution to all of us to CHECK OUR FACTS INSTEAD OF JUST REPEATING RUMORS!!! (Unfortunately, the advent of the blogosphere may not play the same fact-checking function for the apparition and papal rumor-nets as it does for the MSM.)

That being said, I had a few thoughts recently about why the third secret was best kept under wraps until 1960 (and even after):

  1. The third secret was written down January 3, 1944, in the midst of World War II. Since the third secret contains a vision of a devastated city and a large number of people, including the pope, apparently being killed, if it had been released in 1944 it likely would have been interpreted as a prophecy of the events of World War II instead of the accurate interpretation of it as pertaining to the events of World War III (the Cold War). Indeed, Pius XII already thought that Hitler was going to have him kidnapped, and as we’ve recently learned Hitler did order the pope to be kidnapped (but the general didn’t carry out the order). If Pius had read it in 1944, he likely would have thought (incorrectly) that he would be martyred by Hitler.
  2. Since Sr. Lucia already sensed that the third secret pertains to the part of the second secret where it is mentioned that "Russia will spread its errors," she deferred its opening to 1960, a date that she intuited needed to be reached for it to be properly understood. Indeed, by that time the Cold War was under way and the threat posed by Russia was well understood.
  3. It’s even good that the message was not announced to the world at that time. If it had been it might have resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy of a pope being killed (i.e., some nujob might have taken it into his nogging to off the pope and thus fulfill the third secret).
  4. It’s also good that it wasn’t announced because the assassination attempt on John Paul II did not occur until May 13, 1981. If the secret had been known publicly beforehand then we would not be able as clearly to see this date as linking it to Fatima (May 13 was the first appearance of Our Lady of Fatima) since we wouldn’t be able to be sure that the would-be assassin (or his paymasters) didn’t know this and didn’t engineer it to occur on that date because of the third secret.
  5. It’s even good that, though others had read the third secret previously, John Paul II had not read it before the assassination attempt. At first he did not see the connection between the May 13 assassination attempt and Fatima, but when he read the third secret afterwards, the scales fell from his eyes (figuratively!) and he credited Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life. This helped motivate him to perform the consecration of Russia (and, for good measure, the rest of the world) in 1984.

This consecration, coupled with John Paul II’s role in the end of the Cold War, may have averted a nuclear war that might otherwise have ben the terminus of the U.S.-Soviet conflict (note the third secret’s reference to a angel’s flaming sword about to set the world on fire but stopped by Mary’s intervention).

It’s interesting to observe that the secret of Fatima addressed each of the first three world wars:

  • [Addressing World War I:] "If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end. . . . "
  • [Addressing World War II:] " . . . but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI."
  • [Addressing World War III:] "If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church."

Unfortunatley, it said nothing about World War IV (the War on Terror), which we are now in the midst of. We know this because in the wake of September 11th and the start of World War IV,

The content of the interview held between the Vatican representative and Sister Lucia in the convent of Coimbra, Portugal, where she resided, was made public by the Vatican press office on Dec. 20, 2001.

The text of the document states: "In recent months, especially following the sad events of the September 11 terrorist attacks, articles appeared in newspapers alleging new revelations by Sister Lucia, announcements of letters of warning to the Pope, and apocalyptic reinterpretations of the Fatima message."

"Moreover, emphasis was placed on the suspicion that the Holy See had not published the entire text of the third part of the secret, and some ‘Fatimist’ movements have repeated the accusation that the Holy Father has yet to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary," the document continues.

As a result, the Vatican note clarifies, it was considered necessary that Archbishop Bertone go personally "to clarify and obtain direct information from the visionary."

The meeting was held in the presence of Father Luis Kondor, vice postulator of the cause of Blessed Francisco and Jacinta (the other Fatima visionaries), and of the prioress of St. Teresa’s Carmelite Convent.

The conversation took place on the afternoon of that Nov. 17 and lasted more than two hours. Sister Lucia, then 94, "was in great form — lucid and vivacious," the Vatican envoy said.

The meeting addressed the question of the third part of the secret of Fatima. The Portuguese religious said that she had read "carefully and meditated on the fascicle published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirms everything that is written," the Vatican statement noted.

When the archbishop explained that there are doubts that part of the secret remains unknown, Sister Lucia replied: "Everything has been published; there are no more secrets."

"If I had received new revelations, I would not have communicated them to anyone, but I would have told them directly to the Holy Father," the religious added.

There was then talk about the statements of Nicholas Gruner, a Canadian priest suspended "a divinis," who is collecting signatures insisting that the Pope finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and alleging that this has never been done.

Sister Lucia told the archbishop: "The Carmel community has rejected the forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the consecration requested by Our Lady was done in 1984, and it has been accepted in heaven" [SOURCE.]

Take that, rumor-net!

READ MY PIECE ON THE THIRD SECRET.

READ THE VATICAN DOC ANNOUNCING THE THIRD SECRET.

LIBERAL BIGWIG: Liberalism Is Dead

. . . or dying, anyway.

Thus says Martin Peretz, editor of liberal think-mag The New Republic.

Among many other interesting things, he writes:

Liberals like to blame their political consultants. But then, if you depend on consultants for your motivating ideas, you are nowhere. So let’s admit it: The liberals are themselves uninspired by a vision of the good society–a problem we didn’t have 30 years ago. For several years, the liberal agenda has looked and sounded like little more than a bookkeeping exercise. We want to spend more, they less. In the end, the numbers do not clarify; they confuse. Almost no one can explain any principle behind the cost differences.

It’s much easier, more comfortable, to do the old refrains. You can easily rouse a crowd when you get it to sing, "We Shall Overcome." One of the tropes that trips off the tongues of American liberals is the civil rights theme of the ’60s. Another is that U.S. power is dangerous to others and dangerous to us. This is also a reprise from the ’60s, the late ’60s. Virtue returns, it seems, merely by mouthing the words.

For months, liberals have been peddling one disaster scenario after another, one contradictory fact somehow reinforcing another, hoping now against hope that their gloomy visions will come true.

I happen to believe that they won’t. This will not curb the liberal complaint. That complaint is not a matter of circumstance. It is a permanent affliction of the liberal mind. It is not a symptom; it is a condition. And it is a condition related to the desperate hopes liberals have vested in the United Nations. That is their lodestone. But the lodestone does not perform. It is not a magnet for the good. It performs the magic of the wicked. It is corrupt, it is pompous, it is shackled to tyrants and cynics. It does not recognize a genocide when the genocide is seen and understood by all. Liberalism now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions. Let’s hope we still have the strength.

GET THE STORY.