The Church on faithfulness and opinion

In the 4th paragraph it states: "No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)"

With this declaration so early in the document, the pope is validating everything he says after it. He thinks people should trust what the church tells them. Many other people feel this way as well. Not just with religion, but with other authorities such as the government and police. Many people put their faith into the systems that govern the world, and trust them to not mislead them. However the pope is saying he has more than just authority, but has been given this ability through god. He goes on to say that if you do not heed what they have to say, you may not get into heaven after you die. I believe that ending statement is what makes people want to have faith in the church, because if they don't, they won't go to heaven. The same way that if you go against the government or other federal organizations you are called unAmerican and harassed.

I don't agree with the pope saying you should have complete faith in the church's interpretation and statements.Isn't that why the bible tells many of the same events, but through different viewpoints? When it comes to the bible, and they way people live their lifes, I think it's more important to do what you believe is right rather than strictly follow what the church says. I also don't agree with the fear tactics they use to try to scare people into agreeing with them by saying they'll go to hell if they disagree. Free will and thought was also given to us by God, according the bible, so we should use those abilities to their full potential instead of relying on others.

'till death do we part

“Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.” -Pope, Paragraph 9

                It is very apparent to all of us the opinion the Pope has on marriage and who the bond it should be shared with. This opinion is not only held by the Pope but by many other people in the United States, and this is something we have discussed in class. The Pope views marriage as something only a man and a woman can share, and a lot of it is driven from his religious beliefs. This goes for other individuals also who believe marriage should only be shared between a woman and a man. Religious beliefs is a subject many people are very firm about, and many stick to their beliefs from day one. This is understandable because we like to believe one thing, find many reasons to have that belief, and then keep it because that is the easiest way to go.

                I on the other hand, have a different opinion on this subject than the Pope. I do not believe that the man and woman are the important aspects of marriage, but the love that is shared between the two individuals who are going to wed. I have based some of these opinions off of my family. My parents got married at the ages of 16 and 17 because my mom became pregnant, and due to my grandparents religious views they were pushed to marry immediately. Their marriage did not become out of love, but out of religious views and a pregnancy. Their marriage ended when I was three years old, and the vows they made on their marriage day were not followed. Two people should marry because they love each other unconditionally and want to spend the rest of their lives together, “’till death do we part.” I believe the vows that are made at marriage are the important aspect, not the people making them.

                While reading how the cultural aspects of marriage have emerged in the past 30 years or so, we read many points that go completely against what the Pope states in his explanation of the order and structure of human life, especially on marriage. The Pope states that it was understood since day one that husband and wife are fully aware of what they are doing when they vow to one another, and that it is until death. But now, due to the actions of the people around us the aspect of culture in marriage has turned to 40-50% of marriages resulting in divorce. Our population has caused culture to turn this way.

The Pope on the Infertile Period

"Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

The Pope tells us that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is STRICTLY for the purpose of reproduction and taking responsibility for a family. HOWEVER, there is a way around this law, and that is the infertile period. If a husband and wife wish to express their mutual love in an intimate way, they have to do so during the woman's period. The infertile period is like a form of NATURAL birth control, and therefore can be taken advantage of. This is explaining the difference between natural birth control, and unnatural birth control. The husband and wife are rightly using this natural birth control as much as they want if the conception of another child is undesirable, for example, for economic reasons. Doing so, proves true and authentic love between the couple.

I believe that in order for a husband and a wife to be able to become one with another and bring out the perfections in one another (as the Pope says rightful husbands and wives should), sexual intercourse is a way of doing this. Sexual intercourse is believed as a way for a man and woman to become closer to each other than ever before and to profess their love for one another. In order for a husband and a wife to grow, sexual intercourse will need to come into play before they should be allowed to have children. Husbands and wives will need to grow to be responsible parents before their first child is conceived. I believe sexual intercourse SHOULD be permitted to a man and woman if they are rightfully married, for terms of intimacy and true love, not just for reproduction purposes. If man and woman only participate in sexual intercourse for the means of reproduction, they may not have the bond that a couple needs to be in true, authentic love and it would be more casual and less meaningful, therefore resulting in less growth for the couple and over time, distance will occur.

Sexual intercourse is natural, and appealing to men and women alike. We see sex everywhere, whether it be music, clothing, advertisements, artwork, landscapes, buildings, or even food for God's sake. Sex takes our 5 senses into mind using forms of scents, tastes, touch, sounds, and sights to control what we are attracted to and what 'turn us on,' ultimately. Our bodies read what is sexual and what is not at all sexual without us even knowing it. Our bodies construct our ultimate fantasies and what we desire and long for in terms of intimacy. We grow and adapt when we read the media around us and our sexual wants and needs begin to change to the point where we want more, more, more exciting and new ways to achieve satisfaction. Each and every culture has different forms of ways to achieve sexual satisfaction and different traditional sexual practices, making each culture sexually different, eve though sexual intercourse gives all of us the same enjoyment. Bordo explains to us that women go to high extents to be sexually attractive to males, by means of bulimia and anorexia, so that they are the woman the man chooses in the end. Sexuality is a competition between women and the man will go for the most attractive, and child-bearing looking woman. There are tests conducted by prestigious schools, such as Harvard, to tell us what our bodies like and are appealed to. Those that we don't appeal to are a turn off and we look at them as appalling. Leppert reads the female nude as more sexual a character in our famous artworks than a traditional, non-sexual, icon as we thought these paintings were to supposed to be. Orgies are depicted, Adam and Eve are reconstructed, ALL in terms of our sexual desires and sights in terms of our intimacies. History has shown that sex is, and always will be, a major contributor in the construction of our cultures and medias. Church's and religions all alike deny sex and look down upon it, for we were not created to possess satisfaction, we were created for reproductive purposes and that sex is the ultimate temptation. But in reality, SEX IS EVERYWHERE, and all we have to do is take it in and enjoy it, for it is a natural occurrence.

Pope Paul VI

In the Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI states from paragraph 14:

"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when 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. (14) 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."

Simply put, you cannot use birth control as a means to control the population. Population growth, itself, is a huge issue especially since we recently hit the 7 billionth person mark recently, but here, Pope Paul VI is stating that any form of birth control is wrong in regulating the population, whether it is through a vasectomy or just a condom.

I have to disagree with the Pope's claim for a couple reasons. Population growth is an economic issue. With the rising number of people, we face the issue of how we plan to accommodate the rising numbers with food, shelter, water, and other resources, especially in more affluent countries like the United States where energy consumption is a big issue.

Not only is the issue an economic issue, but a human rights one too, which face bad social and psychological

consequences. The liberties of using birth control to manage family size/population are taken away with Pope Paul VI's claim and that in itself would bring uproar to the people of the United States, due to the structure of feeling that has been created through time when addressing human rights and the right to privacy. Pope Paul's claim implies that sex between two people, male and female, is natural..... when in reality, because humans have agency and they aren't animals and therefore sex is not natural. We have constructed ourselves through history to be able to make a choice in whether or not they want to have sex, when they want to have sex, and who they want to have sex with. Makes me think back to the differences between sheep sex and "human" sex.

This brings me to the two child policy in China. We had Pope Paul VI's claim where there shouldn't be ANY birth control during sex, whereas in China, they place a strong law on how many children a family can have at a time. Although they do adjust it according to where in China you are located...(typically you can have slightly more children if you live in rural parts of China) if you are caught violating the implemented policy, they do force the women to get sterilized. In the case of China, it seems to be the opposite extreme to Pope Paul VI's claim. It also violates human rights, especially women's rights. In the case of a communist country, it would make sense to have a law like this in place to control the people and the country's resources, but that does not make it right. One social consequence that arises with China enforcing this policy is the way the child/children will grow up to be like. Studies have been shown that single children don't have the childhood that their parents did being able to grow up with multiple siblings resulting in slightly socially awkward and less independent children, obviously we can't pinpoint that every child will be one specific way, but we can follow trends and see where that leads us to.

Overtime, humans have developed more and more of their sense of agency... the ability choose what they want to do and how they want to feel while doing it. In the case of Pope Paul VI's claim, I agree that in cases like China where abortion is required if the govt discovers that you may have be having an unannounced child, abortion should not be used, but I disagree that it shouldn't be used at all. I believe that we have developed well enough through time to be able to decide when we want to stop having children, if we never want children in the first place, etc, and we have the choice to choose which birth control method we want to use in order for one thing to happen. In places of overpopulation, I think if we can educate women who are willing to be educated about sex and birth control methods, we can lower the risk of having unplanned pregnancies, especially with the technology that we currently have.

Pope and Contraception

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law." -Pope, Paragraph 17.

Overall Pope Paul VI is explaining how contraception is bad for people, especially young people because it will lower moral standards by making sex more accessible. The Pope is bringing up the issue that the young are overly exposed to temptations in today's society. The Pope is condemning contraception because he feels that if moral laws are easier to break, then they will be broken.

The Pope's position on contraception is a very dangerous position to be taking on a health standpoint. of course it is taught that abstinence is the best policy when it comes to premarital sex, but premarital sex is going to happen. The Pope's decision is one of ignorance. The point is that assuming that premarital sex is going to happen, why not try to make it safe. Everyone who feels that abstinence is the only policy that should be taught is putting everybody at risk. Abstinence and contraceptives are both ways of fighting STDs and STIs that kill millions every year. With the knowledge that premarital sex is not extinguishable in the world, the only LOGICAL way to move forward is to promote contraceptives, yet stress that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed way to be totally safe.

It was overwhelmingly supported in class that a woman on "the pill" is a different woman. The idea is the same with contraceptives. Once young people learn about the advantages of contraception, their thinking changes forever. But this needs to be seen as imminent, and the only way to make a safer and more bodily conscious future is to embrace contraceptives for their health benefits. In this case I feel the Pope is holding back his followers from being healthier.

The Pope and the "I Do's"

"This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment."

These words are from Humane Vitae written by Pope Paul VI in Paragraph 9. We all know the views of the church and marraige, but in case you didn't know, they have a strict policy when it comes to being together in a state of holy matrimony. Basically it says to love your partner, and only them for all time to come and that the act/feeling/emotion of 'love' is human. You and your partner share everything, you trust one another, you love one another, you don't cheat (huge emphasis on this mainly because if you cheat then you're marriage will fall apart, etc), and that the main thing you're supposed to do is make babies. The Pope outlines that marriage is between husband and wife and that marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman, in which they assign gender roles to the subjects in question.

The Pope (and all the people who back him up and share the same ideas) argues that marriage is happy, marriage is eternal, and that everything is going to be okay in the end, it also entails that you're going to find someone who's going to follow these rules, and see 'marriage' the way he sees it. The Pope says that no matter what you will be happy with someone else...which says a lot.

The problems with the way the Pope thinks comes in many forms/thoughts/ideas. One, that you are heterosexual, I mean, what if you're not? In his letter he doesn't define 'husband' and 'wife' as being a male and female, neither does the Bible...but by him excluding this thought he also excludes the idea of marriage between a male/male and female/female. He makes no room for 'love being of free will' like he states, free will happens for everyone and if you fall for someone of the same sex and want to be married well then you're screwed. Two, he makes a huge assumption that your partner is perfect and doesn't come with baggage or anything. He doesn't say what to do if your partner isn't an angel like the way your partner should be, if they cheat on you, if they give you an STD/STI, if they break your heart, if they're mean to you, if they beat you up, if they rape you, if you're not compatible (like if you're betrothed)...etc. The Pope spells out what marriage should be like without including all of the logistics/life things that could happen along the way. All of these things are psychological/identity/social problems. Like what if you don't fit the 'perfect angel partner' that he outlines does that mean your damned? What if you get married and find out you're just not right for each other are you damned eternally?

The consequences of this are quite plain, everyone tries to live up to this perfect standard that doesn't exist. It compiles everything from guys wanting to be all muscles, girls wanting to be skinny and pretty, identity crisis' with your sexuality, how you look to other people, you worry about what other people may think of you, you worry if you're doing things 'right' or if you're doing them 'wrong' and what this means to your culture/ideas of the afterlife??? Then you're thinking about what to believe in and who you should believe in...

The Pope and his ideas of marriage can be thought of deeply and interestingly. You can literally tear his idea of marriage apart and apply the cultural aspects of 'marriage' and what it means to people. People change and as a result culture does as well. Right now marriage means to be in love with someone with a fair chance of being divorced (people are always cheating). 50 years ago marriage meant saving yourself for the partner that you're going to marry with divorce being a last resort. Things are definitely changing.

Stem Cell Research Vs. Religion

“Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when 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” (paragraph 14).

Stem cell research is a common controversy in the United States. Many Catholics and other Christians believe that stem cell research should be banned because the use of some of this research uses embryonic stem cells. These are made with donated eggs and sperm to make embryos, but they are not grown inside a woman, and there was no sexual act to create these. Embryonic stem cells are very useful because they are extremely versatile. If they are undifferentiated, they can grow into muscle cells. Pancreatic cells, skin cells, etc. With this technology, it is thought that we could find methods to cure the damaged cells in patients who are sick with terminal diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, heart disease and hearing loss.

The reason that this issue relates to the Pope’s Huminae Vitae is because of the interpretation that Catholics give to this doctrine. Some religious people believe that the use of those human embryos qualifies as “direct abortion.” They believe that any manipulation of these processes that does not result in a baby is essentially murder. They use cute baby posters to convince you that there is no conceivable difference between a group of cells no larger than the head of a pin and a full sized smiling baby. They believe that using these embryos destroys the potential life that could have resulted from that particular egg or sperm.

Here’s how I see it: a woman can be born with up to 7 million eggs. Men’s bodies can produce almost unlimited amounts of semen. Honestly, we have more than enough of these resources to go around. The probability that the egg/sperm that they are using for their stem cell research is the same one that would have ended up being fertilized and carried to term is almost laughably small. The truth is that those little tiny cells could save someone’s life. I think that it’s wrong to value potential life over actual life. These people are alive right now, they’re suffering, they’re dying slowly, their families are grieving, and they’re good people who got stuck with a bad lot in life. Why does the Pope feel that their lives are worth less than a group of cells? Those embryos are not babies. They don’t wear adorable hats. They can’t smile. But they could save someone’s life.

An article in the Minnesota Daily recently announced that the University of Minnesota is adding an undergraduate course in stem cell research methods and ethics. The University is a huge proponent of stem cell research, and has received 43 million dollars in funding from the federal government to contribute to research on the subject. There is an entire institute at the University devoted to Stem Cell Research. I take great pride in attending a university that is dedicated to finding cures to these severe diseases and changing the lives of those who suffer from them or may suffer from them in the future.

The Pope & In Vitro Fertilization

"Excluded is any action, which either before, at the moment of, or after marital intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation-whether as an end or as a means" (no. 14). –Paul VI

This quote from the Humanae Vitae is The Catholic Church’s basis for condemning contraceptives such as condoms or birth control pills. The Pope and the Church believe that any method which a couple uses to inhibit the birth of a child is inherently ‘conta-life’ or against life. They believe that the intent to keep a baby from being born is just as morally wrong as ending the life of a conceived embryo (aka abortion).

However, if this is the case, why would the Church also be against In Vitro Fertilization which has the intent, not of preventing life, but rather of helping it enter the world? The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is morally wrong without exception, even if a couple use their own egg and sperm. The Church explains in Donum Vitae (1987) that “it is morally wrong for couples to attempt to generate human life outside of, or apart from, the act of marital sexual intercourse”. Since In Vitro Fertilization generates life outside of marital sex, the Church is against it.

In Vitro Fertilization is a medical process of artificial insemination, which combines eggs and sperm outside of the body in a laboratory setting (hence the phrase ‘test-tube babies’). Once the embryo forms, it is put back in the mother, and the pregnancy continues as usual. IVF can help couples that have been struggling to conceive on their own, and can also help if the couple has various medical conditions that keep them from having kids.

Overall, I believe that the Church’s stance on IVF, although it is intended to be true to Catholic teachings and morals, is probably counter-intuitive to the Church’s functional goals. The Church is trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage and of life, which is a good reason (from their point of view) to prohibit contraceptives or abortion. However, IVF, although it is not a completely natural way to conceive, actually as the goal of promoting life. You can definitely argue the other side, and The Church has its rational for prohibiting IVF, but I am going to talk about some of the social consequences that I think the Church’s position on IVF has.

First of all, the Church’s position on In Vitro Fertilization could have the social and identity consequence of alienating certain Catholics. If a young Catholic couple were to follow all of the teachings of the Church surrounding the morals of reproductions, and when the time came for them to want to have a child, they are unable to conceive, then they might feel alienated from the Church, because its teachings also prevent them from using alternative methods like IVF to have a child. The Church’s position seeks to prevent people form using the scientific resources that are available to them.

Also, there do not seem to be many (if any) scientific advances in the area of reproduction that the Catholic Church is ok with. To refer back to my original quote, the Church is against all methods that seek to prevent natural procreation. This distinct and immovable opinion can have the social consequence of alienating not just young Catholics, but groups on a larger scale. The Church’s stance seems to put it at odds with Science, and can help to deepen the idea that religion and science are incompatible. If, like we talked about in class, technologies like The Pill, or In Vitro Fertilization necessarily change us, then the Church seems to be putting itself firmly at odds with this change.

Link to the Church's View on IVF :http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/fellows/fellows-commentary/498

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

"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."

-Pope, Paragraph 14- Unlawful Birth Control Methods

This quote from Humanae Vitae is basically saying that any use of birth control, plan b, or trying any way to prevent pregnancy from occurring is unlawful in the eyes of God. Not letting nature take its natural course is a sin against God. The paragraph is explaining how you shouldn't be able to regulate the number of children with contraceptives, God and nature will make that decision for you.

What the Pope is arguing for here is extremely offensive. I Understand that he believes that people shouldn't get abortions because it is killing new life, but I don't he think he should have a right to tell people that it isn't okay to prevent creating life. The Pope's argument has terrible political and social identity as well as psychological identity because it is directed at millions of women all around the world. He is trying to make everyone believe that his beliefs are the way the world should believe as well. He believes it is the only right way. In the psychological sense it takes a toll on women as well because women start to think they are sinning by trying to prevent themselves from having children. He completely takes over the freedom of choice and makes everyone feel guilty for their actions. He overlooks the fact that people have a right to choose whether or not they create life. Isn't it better to prevent creating life if the children aren't wanted at the time, or if the woman was planning on having an abortion anyway? Wouldn't you think that preventing that life from even happening is a better alternative? The Pope's argument here makes it clear that he doesn't think women's freedom of choice should be an option when it comes to creation. Women don't have a voice, they should let nature make the choices for them.

I think the Pope's argument is wrong and I completely disagree with what he is saying. I don't think a women using birth control is a direct intention to interrupt the number of children she wants to have, it's just a precaution for women. Maybe they aren't financially stable at the moment, they don't have a reliable spouse, they aren't ready to be parents. I think that birth control should be available to women because most of the time the women are the ones that are faced with the hardships of single motherhood. Women shouldn't have to feel guilty for using birth control. It's a right and freedom of choice. The Pope seems to be comparing it to abortion in a way but it's nothing like that because there is no baby even born yet. Yes, I agree that abortion is a sin, a crime or whatever and that it is tragic and terrible. BUT preventing a child from being born isn't killing anything, there is nothing to be killed. It's just a preventable method!! When and how you decide to have children shouldn't be connected to a completely different issue (abortion) because it is being put into the wrong context.

Birth control was created as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to protect women. Half of the time women only use it as a way to control their menstrual cycle from being so strong. The Pope argues that preventing the creation of life is a sin and it shouldn't happen, but it's better than actually killing something that has already been created. Using contraceptives is not the same as getting an abortion, it just isn't and a persons decision to use birth control shouldn't be looked down upon. When it comes to preventing pregnancy It is, and always should be about the freedom of choice.

Marriage Is...

Marriage is a very special union between two people. The Pope in paragraphs 8 and 9 really explores what he believes as true "married love" which has brought up much controversy.

"It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives" (paragraph 8).

The Pope not just in this paragraph, but in several others as well, indicates that marriage and love that leads to and exists in marriage is between "husband and wife" or a male and a female. The passage above is an example of this. The Pope is explaining that God's creation was meant to share His love through a union; a union between man, wife, and God. Several times the Pope states "husband and wife" when referring to marriage. He makes it very clear that he believes marriage is solely meant for a man and a woman.

My question is, why is this kind of love limited to just between a man and a woman? Isn't love, unconditional? To me love is a bond so strong that it shouldn't matter who you are or what you look like. Love is something special that all deserve whether it is between different races, cultures, or two men, two woman, etc. Love should not be limited in my eyes.

Because all are able to love in this way, why is marriage not an option for everyone? To share a bond with someone and ultimately share this bond and love through and in marriage should be allowed. Like I said above love is unconditional. It knows no boundaries. It does not discriminate. For this reason, I disagree with the Pope's idea that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. To me, love is too precious and strong to be restricted in any way.

Marriage and Religion

"Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives." Pope, paragraph 8

I think we all have a good understanding of this paragraph of the Pope said. In this paragraph, he points out that marriage is only belong between woman and men, as they have the unique and exclusive gift from god. Because of these gifts, only men and women could have the joy of marriage and rearing of new lives. Pope's idea is very clear that Marriage love is belong and only belong to men and women. This is the limit of marriage, and also is the golden rule of marriage.

As a Chinese, I'm not much a believer so when talk to the problem of gay marriage, I really don't have much to say. However, I do understand why so many people will opposite gay marriage in America. Because America is a religions country. Most people in US is Christian, and what Christian believes is just what Pope said, marriage is only belong to men and women. So accept gay marriage is just to compromise your own belief. I think lots of people won't do that.

When we talked about "structure of feelings" we talked about how to see things as nature, and I think this is also the reason of why people opposite to gay marriage. We have been talk about that taking of what we taught to combine them to our lives. So what we learned from Pope or religion, is to see heterosexual as normal. That's why when there is homosexual, we think it is not normal and reject to it.

As a non believer, when I think about gay marriage, I think is just someone's personal choice, and I don't think religions should stand in the way.

contraception and the church

In the 13th Paragraph it is stated that "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. (16)" is strictly prohibited. I've never understood why the Church is against married couples using any form of contraception.

The reason the church is against the use of any contraceptives is because they believe that sex should only be for procreation so the use of contraceptives is going against god's will. They also believe that if you use contraceptives you are playing God.

Even though the Church believes sex is strictly for procreation, I believe it is unreasonable to ban contraceptives. Doesn't God want happy, healthy families instead of overworked, financially-strained ones? I think it is irresponsible for the Church to ban contraceptives because I don't think they respect how much work and money raising a child really is. There are many families that can't send their kids to college because there's too many of them and in some cases families can't even afford to feed all of their children. In America for a middle class family the average cost of raising a child for infancy to 18 years old is $222,360. This figure does not even include college. When a family can only afford to raise two children it doesn't make sense why they can't use contraception so they don't have more. Although there are some couples that embrace not using contraceptives like the Duggars, there are many couples that want or need to stop having children but can't bring themselves to use contraception. The church has made a social construction that no matter what, it is a sin to use contraception.

Another reason married couples should be allowed to use contraception is because there is a much greater chance for complications during the pregnancy if the mother is older and has had multiple pregnancies. I don't think the church should ban contraceptions because I think God would want families to be happy and healthy with the number of kids they want.

Marriage Means Babies?

"Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being."

-Pope, Paragraph 9

This quote is saying that marriage is not only about uniting the love of a man and a woman, but that for it to be according to God's plan, it must result in bringing new life into the world. Basically, every married couple needs to produce children in order for them to be following God's plan.

This is just further demonstrating the Pope's view of marriage, and who he and all of his supporters believe should be allowed to be married. If marriage must result in procreation, that leaves out all the gay and lesbian couples in the world. For obvious reasons, they are not able to have children, so, in the Pope's mind, they should not be allowed the right to marriage.

I think this is a terrible argument. Just because they cannot have children should not mean they cannot get married. Some people who can have children are extremely irresponsible about it and end up having way more children than they can handle, so they end up putting all these kids up for adoption. If they don't put them up for adoption, these kids end up in underprivileged households where they aren't getting the amount of attention they need to feel loved, and they aren't getting the amount of food they need to be healthy. Often times, gay couples adopt children and provide them with extremely loving homes with plenty of food on the table. Sure, having a family that consists of two dads and no mom might not be exactly what the Pope wants a family to look like, but isn't that better than having children in the foster care system or orphanages? Furthermore, I know many married straight couples who never want to have children. Should these couples be denied marriage because their relationship won't result in procreation? The ability to have children should not be a factor in determining who can and cannot get married.

Gay marriage has been a political and religious issue is the United States for quite awhile now. Many strong supporters of the Christian religion and the Pope, specifically, are very against it, while many others have no problem with it. I think the Pope needs to understand that love is love. When two people can fulfill nearly every other qualification in paragraph 9 besides having children, they are deserving of marriage. Even though they cannot have children of their own, they can provide homes for many children by adopting them and raising them as their own. Isn't this important, too? Gay and lesbian couples miss out on many rights that married couples receive for the sole reason they cannot be labeled as "married". I find this extremely unfair. Love is love. It shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not two people can have children together.

Marriage... & it's limitations.

"Husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives." - Pope, Paragraph 8

I think we all have a clear understanding on the Pope's (...and his peep's) views of marriage, and whom he believes this act should be limited to. He believes this sacred act is allowed strictly between men and women, and reinforces this idea many times through paragraph 9. "It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything..."; "This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which..."; "Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife, it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being..." and so on. His message is clear. Men and women share this act, and he strongly believes this is the way it needs to stay.

I've never been able to wrap my head around the concept of banning gay marriage, and I don't think I ever will be able to. However, I can see where the 'opposing' side is coming from through two aspects of their argument. One of them being compromising your beliefs. It is something no one wants to do, and through this idea, I can see where people with a religious standpoint on this topic are coming from. No matter what your religion, or the values of which you live your life by, once you give in to one thing, it's easy for all your other values to start falling under attack. The second one being that the Pope, as well as the millions of people sharing his viewpoints, believe that procreation is one of of the golden rules in the marriage handbook, something that clearly can't be done (through 'natural' means) with homosexual couples. As much as I respect everyone's beliefs and the way they choose to live their lives, I feel this reasoning alone doesn't justify the ruling that someone else's personal choice (a decision that ultimately has no effect on your life whatsoever) is incorrect.

Through our studies of the politics of representation, we found out that classification is a way of maintaining order, and the things a person considers terrible is anything that breaks this order. I think that through this method, is the easiest way to tackle the subject. People that live their lives according to the Scriptures believe that terrible things are anything the Scriptures tell them are terrible. I guess you can say the same goes for what they consider is correct as well. This is very much a structure of feeling; taking our elements of impulse and what we were taught, and combining them to our lives, or the elements of our consciousness. The thing I find most contradictory about it is how much of the things said through the Scriptures (as well as the Pope) fit in agreement with the lives of homosexual couples. As far as I'm concerned, the Bible has a whole lot of 'love thy neighbors' in it. Is this something we shouldn't do if our neighbor happens to be homosexual? "Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself." - Pope, Paragraph 9. In my opinion, I consider this statement to be fit for any breathing human being, not just a man and a woman. I consider marriage to be a binding commitment, social and personal, between two individuals to take on special obligations to one another. I fail to realize why homosexual couples are prevented from making these commitments to one another and society, while other adults, equivalent in all other aspects of their lives, are able to do so.

"Nothing is more basic to happiness and liberty than the right to love another human being with the same privileges and responsibilities as everyone else." - Marshall Forstein

Leaving Life up to Chance

“The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God as wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws.”
---- Pope, Paragraph 11

Sex does not always result in babies. God controls the body’s baby making and decided when babies should be born. By using birth control you are “playing god” (and that is a sin) thus, birth control is evil.

The Pope’s perspective on “Natural Law” requires leaving the possibility of becoming pregnant up to chance of when the woman has sex during her cycle. With Science we are able to see how the body produces children and what the body has to be doing in order to become pregnant. The chance that a woman becomes pregnant is not up to god. God is unable to point to a woman and say “you are pregnant!” The woman must have sex when an egg is released in order for fertilization to occur.

Even with god controlling the rate that children are born with his natural laws, does not mean that the rate that god allows children to come is the rate that correct for people’s lives. Back before birth control, women would have lots of babies. And they would not stop having babies until they had become too old to conceive. But the problem was that the older the woman got, the higher chance that she could die during childbirth. That doesn’t seem like a fate that god would want for the majority of the population of women. With medicine, humans are able to live longer than the older times, so the age that women would die during childbirth is relatively young compared to how much longer they could live if they were not having babies.

Besides, there are definately some people who are not prepared to have children, even if they are married. But not being allowed to use birth control with a clear concsious, they have no power over their lives and attaining their goals.
In this day in age, families cannot afford to have that many children like they could in the older days. Children have become an economic burden rather than an economic aid like they used to be. Having children puts stress on the family and on society with welfare and services. It also is a stress on the earth with the population boom that the pope mentioned spelling doom for the human race if we do not conserve our resources before they run out.

Birth control enables people to live their lives in the best possible way in our society, and to choose when having a child is right for them.

I think in all, God has not proved to be good birth control for this planet.

A Husband and Wife Marriage

In the ninth paragraph of Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae he clearly defines that a marriage is between a husband and a wife in paragraph 9. One quote from this paragraph that defines this is, "It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience." He also mentions husband and wife later by saying, "so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment." It also states that it is the duty of a husband and wife to bring new life into this world: "Finally, this love is fecund... it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being." In everyday language the Pope is basically saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman who share everything and there ultimate goal iso have children. That is their duty in life once they love one another. This is portrayed through the first image shown. The lady is arguing against gay marriage because she believes that a child need a mother and father. Later on in the Humanae Vitae the Pope states that conceiving a child must be natural. A man and a
man or a woman and a woman would not be able to have a child unless science was involved, and that would not be natural. So according to the Pope gay marriage is not acceptable because of the fact it is not a woman and a man and they are not able to reproduce. Christians are very much against gay marriage as this picture shows. The man holding the picture is a pastor and this was at a anti-gay marriage rally in Massachusetts. However, there is a TON of controversy about this issue. Even here in Minnesota there is a debate about gay marriage. The marriage amendment that is up for vote in the 2012 election is to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman in Minnesota. The Catholic church is supporting this. A marriage prayer put out by the Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis on Friday calls for everyone to support the marriage amendment. It can be found here: http://www.archspm.org/news-events/news-detail.php?intResourceID=4855 In his statement that he issued he said, "We must pray and offer sacrifice for the success of all endeavors that seek to protect and promote marriage." The thing that stood out to me was the protect marriage part. This agrees with the Pope that marriage is for a man and a woman. Is this the right thing to support though? It is hard to choose a side, especially when you are Catholic and are being persuaded to be against gay marriage. A "traditional" marriage conserves the value of a man and woman in marriage. This is the ideal in society because they can have children. This supports the social implications because it is looked down upon in Christianity to be gay. If a person is Christian then they could be shunned from their family is they come out to be gay and their family doesn't support them. Very Catholic families would go to this extreme to conserve their values. The Pope wants to make sure these values stay in place when he specifies that a marriage is between a man and a woman. In the Bible, it is known that the ideal marriage is between a man and a woman because of Adam and Eve. That is what the picture here shows. This protestor is against gay marriage because "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." The Bible states: So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27. The bible also says, Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders no thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. This is the real truth. I believe in the Bible and so it specifically tells me that homosexual offenders won't be joining me in heaven. I don't have anything against people who choose to be gay, they just shouldn't be allowed to marry because it isn't what God wants. I don't like arguing about this because people can't help how they are. To me, this is a structure of feeling, because I was taught to be compassionate towards others, and so I feel bad for people not being able to express themselves, but at the same time I have been taught to see that a marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe people aren't born gay, but their experiences in society make them that way. This I believe is a social construction because people around them shape the way they live. I know that this is a very touchy subject and it is hard to discuss, but when the Pope clearly states it is a marriage between a husband and a wife it is inevitable for Christians (Catholics in specific) to think that gay marriage is acceptable because if they truly believed in their religion, they would not be in support of the legalization of the homosexual marriage. My culture does not accept gay marriage because this is what God has specifically said and the Pope reminds us of that.