A Traditional Catholic in Iowa

Friday, August 10, 2012

Why The Mass?

I was in a conversation recently with a fellow Catholic who made the following statement:

When the mass is celebrated, there are four "actors." Christ, the Church, the Priest, the Congregation. For whom, among these four, do the elements become the Body/Blood of Christ? Who is the "us" in the "for us"?

Bread and wine do not become Christ's Body and Blood for Christ. They do become the Body/Blood for the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation - for our salvation. (They become these elements for the same reason Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross.)

I must take issue with this view. Here is how I responded:

With all due respect, I cannot agree to the premise. He says:

"When the mass is celebrated, there are four "actors." Christ, the Church, the Priest, the Congregation.""

I cannot agree with this sentiment. There are no actors. There is a celebrant. The priest and there are those who are there to worship. The faithful. There is nothing more, nothing less. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? There need be no more than two persons, a priest and one layman to have Holy Mass. Yet, you start making things immediately more difficult by including Christ as an actor? The Church as an actor? No Father, the Church is present insofar as the Church militant gathers, but the Church doesn't have an acting role. And Christ, while present in an unbloody way, is not an actor, He is the sacrifice.

He then asks:

"For whom, among these four, do the elements become the Body/Blood of Christ?"

I knew he would disagree 100% with this, but the answer is, for God, the Father. That is who the Mass is offered for. It is not offered for man. That is the change in theology which has burdened the Church. Holy Communion is not a necessity save once a year for the faithful. The sacrifice, in an unbloody way, is for God the Father. And the faithful worship God, the Father at Holy Mass while the Sacred Host is being immolated. Once the sacrifice is complete, we may share in it, through Holy Communion. But it is in our joining to God, the Father that we are able to share in that sacrificial banquet.

He then states:

"Bread and wine do not become Christ's Body and Blood for Christ. They do become the Body/Blood for the Church, the Priest, and the Congregation - for our salvation. (They become these elements for the same reason Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross.)"

This is true, but the re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary in an unbloody way is first a sacrifice to God, the Father. Why would we sacrifice something to ourselves? That makes no sense, from any sort of religious point of view.

Yes, Christ sacrificed Himself for us on the Cross. But that happened one time. He doesn't die over and over and over. The unbloody re-presentation of Calvary is a commemoration of that event, on our behalf to God, the Father.

I'll spell it out as clearly as I can. The sacrifice of the Mass is not "for us" in the manner that it is being presented. It is for God the Father. We participate in that sacrifice insofar as we worship. But, to presume that it is for us is to misunderstand the intention of the Church.

How does the Canon start again? We come to you Father....

The whole of the Canon is aimed not toward us, but toward God. Where it rightly belongs. We worship. We lay our prayers at the foot of the altar. The priest gathers those prayers and he takes them to the altar and offers them on our behalf, as he offers (celebrates) the Mass.
I can't be any clearer. Sure there are parts of the Mass where we recognize what we are doing, but the Mass is not "for us" it is "for God." If that were not the case, then there would be no need for a heavenly liturgy. Yet there is one. And the Mass is the re-presentation of that heavenly liturgy on Earth.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Ah...the Glorious 60s, How I Hate Them....

A priest acquaintence was recently speaking about the merits of Vatican Council II, as he saw them:

It is easy to see the fly in the ointment concerning some of the deleterious practices that developed out of the wrong implementation of the splendid documents of Vatican II. So there is plenty wrong with the wrong-headed, liberalizing, false egalitarianism of spirit of Vatican II ecclesilogy. Music in the reformed Liturgy has been the biggest sore thumb and the iconoclasm that went with what was proposed as renewal. But with that said, this is what has been good about Vatican II.
1. Catholic adults are asked to be Catholic adults and to live their lives as adults, responsible for their faith and their salvation. Gone are the days when only the priests and religious were understood as "church" and everyone else as inferior children who needed a paternalistic approach to them from priests and sisters. What many are doing here in terms of offering ideas and even challenging the authority of the Church is a result of Vatican II, but I would say some have gone to the extreme in that they reject a council which is anathema!
2. People are taking ownership in the local parishes, contributing as adults, and appreciate Catholic Stewardship and the Church's call that they use their talents for building up the Church and local parish, such as in ministries like Daybreak, Fam, St. Vincent de Paul, the RCIA and numerous other ministries and people are empowered to do these things. This would not have happened in pre-Vatican II times except for running bazaars and fund raisers.3. The RCIA as we have it today provides for a recovery of an early Church practice with all the liturgies and prayers associated with it. This was totally lacking in the pre-Vatican II Church.4. More pastoral flexibility and understanding the human condition a little bit better, more mercy than punishment. 5. Liturgy that is more accessible and without having to do cartwheels and handstands to understand it. I attribute this to the vernacular and I do feel that for the Mass itself, a total revamp was not necessary, but vernacular was/is and the expanded lectionary. I simply do not buy that a one year cycle was all lay Catholics need. That is a red herring to say the least and no one should lament the loss of the one year cycle, although I wouldn't mind it as a particular year.

I responded thusly:

1. I also have to disagree with your assessment of Catholic adulthood. It is elist to think that Catholics prior to Vatican Council II were somehow oppressed children who left their faith to priests and nuns. I disagree 100%.

The role of the priest and the nun is to guide Catholics through their faith and to help them understand it. But we don't have to have a perfect knowledge of that faith.

There is something to be said about having the faith of a child. We should be able to look to the Church as our mother. We should be able to look to the Church in a way where her priests and religious are leaders and we shouldn't have to rely on strict "freedoms" and "adult thoughts" to get us through.

We can and we should speak to the Church as adults, when we are so, but we should always look upon her with the wonderment and eyes of a child. To lose the sense of mystery and the sacred is to lose a great portion of what it means to be Catholic. Sure, one can understand that a Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace. But is there more that needs to be known, or is that enough? For centuries, that idea of sacrament is what got billions to heaven. But since the Council, it isn't enough? There is a real problem in that way of thinking.

2. People took ownership in their parishes. The Knights of Columbus. The building of 1500 seat parish churches out of stone and mortar. The advent of various clubs and organizations. The ownership in parish life is not just the spiritual, but the temporal working with the spiritual in harmony. There is so much more to ownership than just the things...it is knowing that the parish church is home. It is where we go to bury, to marry, to baptize, to cry, to laugh and to love. It is a place in heart, mind and deed. But is not just what Vatican Council II babies think, when it comes to "ownership." This all existed well before the Council and it has largely dried up since. The world has taken the place of the parish for the center of Catholic life and that is a huge problem. Schools are closing. Parishes are closing. Membership in service organizations are dwindling....not because of what happened before the Council, but after.

3. Interesting to note that the "early Church" references that keep popping up sure seem like archealogicalism. What about development? What about the definition of dogma and doctrine which happened in the two millinea between the early Church and Vatican Council II? And where does one start defining "the early Church?" 100? 325? 1000? 1054? 1570? 1854? 1961? It is a complete misnomer and misleading to use the "early Church." The Church has grown since then and there have been organic and necessary changes. The education that Catholics got catechetically prior to Vatican Council II puts to shame any RCIA program today.

4. More mercy than punishment? I don't ever recall my mother or grandmother being punished for being Catholic. Archbishop Sheen taught mainly before the Council...and he was full of merciful teaching....As was Pius X, as was the Cure D' Ars, as was Therese of Liseiux. But they also understood that there were consequences for actions. Something we have lost in this generation.

5. Cartwheels to understand the Mass. The Mass doesn't need to be literally understood, but I can guarantee you that most traditionalists understand the TLM a lot better than Catholics understand the Novus Ordo. This is about language. And the idea that if it "ain't in English" it "ain't good." I call BS on that. The Mass particular is where the priest communes with God on behalf of the faithful in the pew. It matters not whether the faithful hear one word of what the priest says, Latin, English, Russian or Greek. He should be focused on worshiping God the Father through the sacrifice of the Mass. That can be achieved by any number of means, meditating on the Life of Christ, the Stations of the Cross, the Nativity, or following along in the hand missal, which allows a person to (gasp) understand.

Bottom line Father....the destruction wrought after Vatican Council II wasn't because of Vatican Council II. It was because Vatican Council II opened the stage for men to hijack that which was beyond them. They took the Divine and made it profane. And now it falls on my generation to pick the pieces up and start re-building brick by brick. And we are none too happy about the fact that our glorious Church is in shambles, because aggiornamento needed to rule the day...how? By tuning in, turning on, and yes, Father....dropping out.

We're not dropping out...we're coming back...but we don't want the banal and on the spot. We want authenticity as the Church gave it to us from time immemorial through all of the Councils, including today.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Circle the Wagons

Over at Southern Orders, Fr. McDonald makes the following assertion:

"However, the Church prior to Vatican II had a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect it from the Protestant Reformation. But the type of godless secularism that is much more dangereous for Catholics needs to be acknowledged and protection from it is necessary. There should be a greater fear of godless secularism compared to Reformed Protestantism."

I must disagree with the good Father. The godless secularism is easy enough to deal with...the Church conquered that once before you know. However, reformed Protestantism is a completely new concept which has wrought upon God's creation so much strife and disdain for the Church which Christ gave to the whole of humanity.

When we look at modern godless secularism, it comes directly from reformed Protestantism. For ultimately what is Protestantism if it is not humanism veiled with the trappings of religion. The so-called enlightenment found it's roots in Protestant Europe and gained it's foothold not by causing Catholics to abandon Catholicism, but rather by coercing Protestants to stop believing in that which is true. In other words to take off the veil of relgious trappings and expose humanism in it's fullest sense.

As I see it, Vatican Council II, addressed nothing. All it did was to allow the liberals a forum in which they could complete their ideology. John XXIII gave them the stage and Paul VI let them dance on it. Thankfully, the dance is winding down.

We, as Catholics, should be circling the wagons. We should be protecting the Faith, because that is what we are called to do. We are called to catechize the Catholic and the Protestant. We are called to be ecumenical with the Orthodox and we are called to evangelize the non-Christian (pagan). This is how we have circled the wagons in all of history. It is how we should do it today.

Vatican Council II, while being a Council did nothing to further Catholicism. It simply was. It did nothing to help the Catholic achieve the 3 ends of which I just spoke. In the end, Vatican Council II was a non-starter, because there was nothing started...except the liberal mindset being forced upon the average Catholic during the reforms after the Council. And that was harmful.

Father also says,

"The Church has had a two thousand year history and there is always great fomment and great strife after Ecumenical Councils and when there is religious, political and social upheaval."

There was no foment and strife after most Councils. The path was straight and the vision was clear. Dogma was defined and Doctrine was made to be understood. While there was a curve to application, because of the correspondence of the time, that does not equate to foment. There was a clear understanding of what must take place. And a new Catholic Renaissance became the norm, until the need for another Council in 1870.

Father, don't misunderstand, I think that Catholics should be Catholics. I just think that Protestants should be too. That is our goal and Vatican Council II just didn't account for that. And that is the great downfall of the latest Council.

Some Further Thoughts on the Ordinariate...

I think that those Anglicans who employ the use of the Knott Missal have it right, with regard to the liturgical action, if this is the direction you'd like to see the conversation go.

Essentially the Knott employs hieratic English. It has a set chant scale and it closely translates the TLM into the vernacular.

Obviously, there are some options which include the Book of Common Prayer, but they are just options and can be omitted in favor of retaining the Catholic identity of the liturgy. With the only things missing being valid Orders and the valid intent of Consecration itself.

Otherwise, it is hard to think of the Knott being anything other than the best option for those who wish to be part of the Ordinariate. This however, is a long way off. I am close to a priest of the Ordinariate and he has made it clear that the the Knott Missal (English/American Missal) is a long way off from being approved. The Book of Divine Worship Form I and II are the two which will be employed moving forward, for the foreseeable future.

The translation of the Knott Missal is at:
http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp...

I spoke about this at length at Ars Orandi:
http://arsorandi.blogspot.com

Ultimately, I think that the idea of the New Liturgical Movement within the Ordinariate is being undermined. The bill of goods which was being sold before they entered is not what is coming to fruition, at least from where I sit. The Book of Divine Worship is akin to the Novus Ordo celebrated at any parish.These are my initial views and they can be amended. I am certainly open to any holes which are in my thought process, but ultimately I cannot assent to the idea that the TLM is not part of the Anglican Patrimony.

A few other words....It is clear that I am critical of the Novus Ordo. I think that it is banal and on the spot. However, I do not question it's validity. I feel exactly the same way about The Book of Divine Worship. I feel it to be a compromise, as most of the priests of the TAC and ACA who came into the Church never celebrated it as a regular practice. It smacks of Conciliarism.

Also, I do fully support the idea of the TLM retaining it's glory as it is. There is no need to change (save adding the saints who have been canonized since the 1962 Missal), likewise I feel that the use of the Knott Missal (English/American) is most appropriate for the Ordinariate, based upon practical use and application which was widespread.

Insofar as the Ordinariate has their own tradition of using hieratic English, I am supportive of it being retained for their use, but I cannot say the same thing for the applications to the TLM. There is no basis for it and there is no real need, save the participatio activa of the faithful, to which I have spoken ad nauseam.I feel that if we are to retain our heritage as Roman Rite Catholics, then we should be working to embrace the TLM as it is set forth traditionally. To bring hieratic English into the picture does not speak to authentic heritage for Catholics, but rather a compromise with the Protestants in a development which is neither warranted or needed. The fastest growing segment of Catholicism is the traditional movement. This isn't being done from a sense of nostalgia, but rather from a sense of right thinking.

My cry is leave the English to the Anglicans...leave the Latin to the Romans. For the vast majority of Catholics (in this discussion), we are Roman.

Monday, August 6, 2012

A Great Weekend...

I spent Saturday and Sunday in the Twin Cities. Most of you know that I went to college at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul. What many of you may not know is that I lived in the rectory at St. Agnes, in St. Paul for most of my years at St. Thomas.

It was a glorious time and it was a time that set me on the path to becoming a traditional Catholic. I came to first understand my faith and I came to first know what the Church expects, not only from her priests, but also from her laymen. I was witness to arguably the greatest liturgical musicologist in the USA during the 20th century and he became my mentor, Mons. Richard J. Schuler. I got to know some men who have become the beacon of Catholic thought, in the Church today. I got to know Raymond Card. Burke, while he was bishop of LaCrosse. I got to know Bishop Alexander Sample, while he was a priest of the diocese of Marquette. I got to know Bishop Paul Sirba, while he was a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneaoplis, I got to know Bishop John LeVoir, while he was a priest of the same diocese. I got to know Fr. Paul Marx, OSB; founder of Human Life International. I got to know Frs. John Echert, Robert Altier, Robert Fox, Thomas Dubay, S.M., Adian Nichols, O.P., John Hardon, S.J., and the ineffable Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf. These men helped to form me and gave me perspective on what it means to hold the Catholic line at all costs.

Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege of being able to assist at St. Agnes again for the first time in several years. The new pastor, Fr. Mark Moriarty sang his first Missa Cantata in the Extraordinary Form. I have been witnessing Mass sung at St. Agnes for years and years. This past Sunday was a reminder to me that if a parish holds the line, there is no need for anything more or anything less than the expectation of Holy Mother Church.

Fr. Moriarity understands that the faithful clamor and want the Mass celebrated properly. He understands that the role of the celebrant is to commune with God for the laity worshiping in the pew. He understands that he is charged with doing the very best the Church expects. And he expects the same from all who assist at St. Agnes.

This has been the expectation of the pastors of St. Agnes from her inception in 1888. It is the expectation of the pastors today. As I was reflecting while Fr. Moriarty was singing the Mass, I couldn't help but put my hand missal down and just take it in. Take in the splendor and revel in the fact that this is how Holy Mother Church wants it done. She wants it done in Latin. She wants it done oriented toward God with the priest leading. She wants it sung. She wants all the ceremonies. She wants the faithful to be free to worship while experiencing the full beauty and majesty of the liturgical action carried out to it's fullest. She wants the faithful to approach the rail, to kneel, and to receive the Blessed Sacrament with humility and a true sense of need, both spiritually and temporally.

I know that I am biased. I know that I am "a homer" for St. Agnes, but I can tell you honestly, that there is no other diocesan parish in the world who has been so UN-affected by modernism. This was accomplished because the long line of pastors starting in 1888, moving through Mons. Bandas and Schuler and now being continued by Fr. Moriarty lead one to know the sacred. Had every parish been as diligent as St. Agnes, the troubles of the Church would not exist to the extent they do today.

St. Agnes isn't perfect. No place is. There are quibbles and there are peccadilloes, to be sure...but when it comes to the life of Holy Mother Church brought forth through the liturgical life of the Church, St. Agnes puts them aside for the GREATER GLORY OF GOD. Now you know why I sign off AMDG+.

God Bless Fr. Moriarity. God Bless St. Agnes Catholic Church. May her patroness continue to look down upon her and shine upon her majesty and greatness.

Friday, August 3, 2012

More on Pro-Life...

The bottom line is this...this is a matter of choice. One can choose to either support life 100% from conception to natural death or not. It is a matter of philosophy on who one things deserves to be called a human person. We all agree that one who is outside the womb is a human person. However, the debate is ultimately is the one who is inside the womb a human person. My contention is that it is. My contention is that because life does begin at conception (it cannot be proven that it does not), that the person in the womb should be afforded the very same rights as any other human person. That being said, there is no right for anyone, mother, doctor, nurse, father...whomever, to take that life. To take that life is murder. For what is the definition of murder?

To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

Abortion fits that description. If you have seen the way that an abortion takes place, it is 100% undeniable. So this becomes the glaring elephant in the room that pro-aborts do not want to discuss. Why? Because they cannot, no matter the rhetoric, the data, the empirical proof, determine when life does actually begin. Again, it is my contention that life begins at conception.

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/wdlb/wdlb.html

I can provide site after site. And the argument isn't a medical one, for medicine is just science. And science is merely one way of several to prove things. So, when a proof is offered, it must be offered in total. Life does begin at conception, not just medically, but also philosophically, theologically and ethically.

That being said, the question becomes the following. Why should the mother have a right to kill her child in the womb? Some will argue that it is the woman's body and because the unborn child is dependent upon the mother's body for life, it does not assert control over himself. That logic is faulty. There are many times in life wherein a human person is dependent upon the mother for life. Immediately after childbirth until such time as the child can fend for himself and survive. That is but the most obvious, but there are others. Catastrophic injury, infirmity, old age, and the list goes on.

So, as we can see, the abortion issue doesn't really stand up very well, except to say that it is incredibly selfish on the part of the mother to kill the unborn child in her womb. Why is this done? In most cases it is done for either economic or emotional reasons. Either the mother cannot fend for the child or the mother does not feel capable of caring for the child. Neither of these reasons are valid.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

With this idea, we see that the mother really isn't making a choice, but she is pressured by society to abort the child due to influences which surround her. This is a radical shift in thinking regarding children. Today's world does not look at procreation as a gift or as necessary, but rather as a want or a planned action. Also, this view espouses that the right of the man is necessarily secondary, in the vast majority of cases. While it is true that the mother must carry the child to term, it is the responsibility of both parents to raise the child. If life begins at conception, then this rearing should begin immediately. The role of the father should be that of support and nurture to the woman and the unborn child through the gestation period. So, to say that the father has no role or that it is secondary, or even to argue that the impotice should absolutely lie with the woman alone, because it is her body is an absurd one. Because of the bond that sex has between mammals, on a biological level and the bond that sex has on a couple rationally in humans, there is a very important role to be played by the father from the moment of conception to natural death.

Often times it is argued that because one supports the idea of natural death with regard to the lives of the mother and child that he is not compassionate or that he is at a minimum dispassionate for the mother. This could not be further from the truth. In actuality, there should always be an attempt to save the life of both the mother and the child. However, culpability does play a part in this line of reasoning. If all has been done to protect the life of the mother and the unborn child and one or both die naturally during the process, then there is nothing more which can be done ethically. However, if the child is killed to save the mother or vice versa, then there must be a moral and ethical inquiry into why that person was killed. In short, there is nothing that we can do to prevent death, but there is something that we can do to prevent killing. This is probably one of the most compassionate views that can be taken. It is also morally acceptable and it is ethical in its practice. For what is the oath that a doctor takes?

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Abortion does not follow from what a doctor must do. If one argues that this oath was abandoned in the US in the 1870s, fine, however the principle remains and a shortened version is used today.

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, gender, politics, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour

Abortion still doesn't follow.

Regarding contraception, the very same principles as above follow, with the addition that to knowingly contracept is ethically unsound. The main reason being that it closes the sexual action to what it was designed to do. It attempts, imperfectly to relegate the act of sex to that of a purely pleasurable endeavor. This was never the intention, biologically, ethically, morally, or intellectually. There must be a purpose to sex. That purpose, philosophically is that sex fulfills, for the human person a complimentarity which exists on several levels. First, it is procreative. The main reason for sex is to perpetuate the species. Secondly, it is a matter of fecundity. It promotes within the female the role of being able to be fruitful. This is a very important psychological mode for a woman. Thirdly, it is a matter of fidelity. It brings a couple together in a way which is wholly and completely giving on oneself to another, while continuing the bond which exists rationally.

When contraception is involved, there is a loss of one or more of these reasons of complimentarity. Whereas, today's society doesn't necessarily accept these as being absolute, the truth behind them remains. If the sexual action is to fulfill a purpose, any unnatural action which interrupts that is unjustifiable.

Speaking to responsibility of action leads one to understand that this is not merely an instinctual endeavor. It is not merely rational either, but it is a compliment of both within the human person. To corrupt one is to destroy the meaning behind it. I am not saying that sex shouldn't be pleasurable. It absolutely should be. I am not saying that sex must be a negative. To the contrary, it is a very positive and necessary thing. However, to flip the script and accuse the proper application of sex as being negative is to misunderstand the very nature of what sex is.

Very strongly related to responsibility is the idea of abstinence. Wherein one must be responsible in applying the sexual action, one must also realize that there is a time and a place where it is warranted and where it is not. This is not expressly stipulated for sex, but also for any action. To abstain from an action is not a negative, but rather in most instances it is neutral or positive. With regard to sex though, the idea that one must abstain is often considered absurd or unattainable. Why? If abstinence is taught properly, it is the most viable way of preventing unwanted pregnancy, teaching proper sexual ethics, and understanding the importance of the bonds of the sexual union. While there is most certainly a religious undertone regarding abstinence until marriage, that is part of what keeps the sexual action licit. Marriage is, by it's very nature religious. It isn't just Christian or Jewish or Islamic or Taoist, but it is religious. Some view it as more sacrosanct than others, but the constant that remains is that it is a bond by which a man and woman give themselves to another. This has perpetuated through all of history. And the action which most properly binds that is sex. This achieves the twofold end of marriage of which I have been speaking: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. Abstinence fits in this because it follows with the principle of chastity. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. "Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end." (Gaudium et Spes 17)

I do understand that this is not an easy task, but I also understand that it shouldn't be. Self-mastery is a life long challenge and one which requires intimate growth and understanding. I also understand that it can happen. The human person is capable of accomplishing this and to simply assume that he cannot is to sell short the incomparable mind of the human person. Chastity represents an eminently personal task; it also involves a cultural effort, for there is "an interdependence between personal betterment and the improvement of society." Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life. While not all will embrace this ideal, that doesn't mean that one should just give up on promoting it. If contraception can become the norm over time, why can abstinence not replace that, knowing the odds.

I'll close with this. The negative connotation doesn't come from the pro-life movement, regardless of what some will say. The pro-life movement has as it's agenda one thing and one thing only. To promote life from conception to natural death. The pro-life movement doesn't see sex as an oppressive endeavor, nor does it seek to limit those who wish to have sex. To the contrary, the pro-life movement wants to see that sex is perpetuated. However, the pro-life movement does support proper sexual ethics and the moral application of those ethics, as defined classically through contemporary society. The perceived demonizing which takes place is that the pro-life movement holds accountable the actions of those who would not normally expect to be held accountable and that causes friction. Society doesn't like to be told that it's practices need to be changed, especially when those practices lead to economic gain and control of a person's actions.

The pro-abortion movement does not seek the good of the person. The movement advocates a morally questionable practice to limit births, to trivialize sex and to exact political and economic gain for the sole purpose of population control. The pro-abortion movement is not looking out for the best interest of the woman, but rather the pro-abortion movement is looking to fund it's programs and it uses women to this end. It has been said that nobody likes an abortion and that nobody wants to go through an abortion. This comes from both sides. If this is the case, then why does one side continue to provide them?

If contraception is not about population control, what is it about? If contraception is not an outreach of the pro-abortion movement what is it's goal, standing alone? If the end of sex is to procreate, how does contraception fit into that? What is ultimately left at the end of the pro-abortion stance are questions. What is ultimately left at the end of the pro-life stance is an answer.

I'll choose the answer.