Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mental Illness and Casual Sex: A Father’s Plea

Sunday, May 1st, 2011

To whom it may concern:

I would like to write a letter to describe as best I can my thoughts on the relationship between men and women and their relationship to God and moral values.

Before I go into that, I would like to make a few comments on the relationship between mental health and sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

Many people believe that allowing people with chemical imbalances or mental illnesses to have casual sex is something that is good for them.  They believe that men and women naturally need to have sexual relief and pleasure in order to be happy.  That it is not only ok but therapeutic to engage in such behavior.  The only “problem” in their minds is the need not to get STDs nor to get pregnant.  Hence, the “solution” to this “problem” is to get sterilized and then to practice “safe sex” by using condoms to avoid diseases.  They believe that satisfying the biological urges will make that person somehow better, more stable, and happier.

Well, let’s talk a bit about sex.  The sexual act is an act so personal, so intimate, that our very beings unite in some way with our partner….that we do become “one” in some mysterious way and that there is a tremendous bonding that takes place which is permanent and deep.  That this happens seems pretty clear.

When a person who suffers from low self esteem, rejection, failed goals, and constant turmoil in their emotional lives are suddenly lifted above all this for a momentary time, one would think that this is a good.  However, the down side to this is that the great emotional bond and spiritual link to this person is not real, not lasting, and without any commitment for the future.  The net result is that this person is now even worse off due to the stress and strain of yet another rejection at the most profound level of his or her soul.  To set up a situation whereby a person is encouraged to gratify sexual urges as a positive end in itself ends up turning around what appears to be a good thing into a trap for furthering depression, guilt, and even lower self esteem.

There was a case that I knew of where a friend of mine had a boy with Downs Syndrome and they had him institutionalized after a certain age.  Well in this facility they sterilized all the clients and then paired them up and each week they had “sex night” which they spent together with their partner.  The idea here is to offer sexual gratification to these people with no apparent down-side.  Who are we to believe that we can do this with people?  Have these adults no dignity and who are we to allow this?  Who is the one to say that without sexual gratification that life is not worth living?  Who is to say that no man or woman is able to live without it?

My point is that there is a great danger to a person’s emotional well being to engage in casual sex for fun when the impact on a person is so serious and deep.

Would it not be better to take a higher road and strive to work on a person’s self esteem through progress in very human activities such as creative expression, providing mechanisms whereby the stronger ones can help and instruct the weaker ones?  Can we not encourage positive actions to deepen our internal feelings about our own self worth….first in God’s eyes and then in our fellow man’s eyes?  It is quite known that people who are close to God and pray carry a special peace in their hearts which helps them get through life.  Could we not help these people draw closer to God and fill their hearts with his love rather then to satisfy sexual urges?

God created sex to propagate the human species.  His plan according to my understanding is to structure a secure STABLE environment for a man and a woman to join, reproduce, and care for the offspring.  The best way for this to be done is with one couple, their children, one home, over a long period of time.  Out of this stable environment called marriage the sex act is brought out.  Next God allows the intercourse to be pleasurable to support the drive to reproduce because raising a kid is hard.  God also turns off the ability to have kids on a regular basis and for good after a certain age.  The first purpose of intercourse is procreation…whether or not a child is conceived.  The point is that the union is open to procreation.  There actually is a very good form of birth control which is practiced by Catholics and it is called NFP….Natural Family Planning and the success rate of those who properly utilize this process is higher than that of condoms for example….the difference here is that there is NO sex during the times that the woman could become pregnant.  To block procreation by sterilization (permanently) or with birth control goes against God’s plan for the marriage union.

As a side point, there are natural results of going against God’s will for using abortion, sterilization, or birth control and that is that nations will literally disappear and the people are not reproducing enough to replace themselves and the nation will just wimp away.  Also, in the US, with 50 million babies killed through abortion….guess what?  The money to support the parents who aborted their kids will not be there for them to live on as the kids are not there to pay taxes.

God has a plan for us.  This plan is pretty much known, or could easily be known, to us; but, we, like our freedom to do whatever we want, particularly stuff which is fun or pleasurable, and blow-off such talk of God’s plan to religious “nut-jobs”.  But there is a price to pay for ignoring the way God wants us to live…..and that price involves things which go on deep within our heart.

Casual sex will not improve my daughter’s life.

Sterilizing her could seriously impact her self esteem as a woman and drive her into deeper depression….a dangerous thing for her fragile state.

My daughter needs to focus on healing, being productive through volunteer or paid work, be encouraged to stay active in her faith which HAS demonstrated to be of benefit to her, to have wholesome and uplifting relationships, to be closer to her family after this pregnancy, and to establish goals which demonstrate that she can be successful in some limited way…but enough to bring her peace and tranquility in her life.

Anonymous

Posted in Abortion-Contraception, Education, Morality, Sterilization | Comments Off on Mental Illness and Casual Sex: A Father’s Plea

Breastfeeding and Short Luteal Phases

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

“To God be the Glory”—Greg Jennings after his Packers team won the Super Bowl.

Occasionally a breastfeeding mother wonders if it is morally right to continue breastfeeding if there is a potential risk to the embryo not being able to implant properly or be sustained by the uterine lining.  The mother wonders if she should quit breastfeeding and wants a Catholic answer to her concerns.

These same questions have been discussed and answered over the years with regard to breastfeeding and the effect of breastfeeding at the time of conception if the luteal phase is short.  The mother wonders if she will have a healthy pregnancy or will she be responsible for a possible miscarriage.

First, a mother does not know ahead of time whether she will have a short luteal phase in the upcoming menstrual cycle.  Here God is in charge.  Years ago we brought this concern to the renowned moral theologian, Msgr. William Smith.  He said there is nothing immoral with having sexual relations during the fertile time for a breastfeeding mother whose cycles have returned and has experienced short luteal phases.

In addition, recent research has shown that implantation can occur as early as 4 or 5 days after ovulation.  Most short luteal phases are 4 to 5 days in length or longer.  As a mother, you can continue to breastfeed and do what’s best for your child.  Eventually fertility returns and pregnancy usually follows for the breastfeeding mother.  This is God’s timing.

I have had 3 miscarriages.  This concern surfaced immediately with the first miscarriage.  I was only nursing infrequently at that time, but we were concerned that the breastfeeding caused the miscarriage.  We checked many sources immediately after that first miscarriage and learned that my nursing had no effect upon my miscarriage.  We checked again years later with a good Catholic doctor and received the same response.

Short luteal phases can occur at anytime, even for a non-breastfeeding mother.  When a mother is breastfeeding, the breastfeeding may reduce her chances of becoming pregnant.  One couple we know desired another baby but the wife was nursing a toddler.  They tried to lengthen their luteal phase in order to achieve a pregnancy.  It was over a year of such cycles before a pregnancy was achieved.  Again, we are not in charge.  With regard to short luteal phases, we do not know ahead of time what the length of the luteal phase will be.  Likewise such cycles can occur at anytime.  As noted above, a good moral theologian such as Monsignor William Smith says that there is no moral requirement to quit breastfeeding for this reason.

Mothers, remember that the longer you breastfeed, the better the health outcomes are for both you and your baby.  We encourage you to come to our website and read the blogs for World Breastfeeding Week for 2007, 2008, and 2009.  The blogs are at the upper right corner of www.NFPandmore.org.  Those blogs will offer you the encouragement you need to keep breastfeeding.  On the home page you can download our online NFP manual.  A donation is requested if you can afford it.  On pages 103 and 104 of this manual you can read many of the benefits associated with breastfeeding.  It’s amazing how long the benefits last for both mother and child–– even years after the breastfeeding has ceased.  God is good.  He has a plan for mother and baby, and it is good.

Sheila Kippley
www.NFPandmore.org

Posted in Ecological Breastfeeding, Morality | 1 Comment »

The Pope and Condoms Part 2

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

The media players have had a field day with the Pope’s comments dealing with condoms.  By review, it started with the pre-embargo publication of the comments of Pope Benedict XVI to journalist Peter Seewald in a book-length interview titled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and The Signs of the Times (Ignatius).  Journalist Seewald noted the criticism of Pope Benedict’s previous comments against the use of condoms to counter the spread of AIDS in Africa.  In response, the Pope first noted that the Catholic Church is in the forefront of those who are helping victims of AIDS.  Then he added:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Those comments unleashed a blizzard of comment.  Some opined that the pope was inferring that using condoms was okay if the intention was to try to prevent the spread of disease.  Not so.  Dr. Janet Smith and Fr. Joseph Fessio explained that he was in no way saying that the use of condoms by homosexuals made their sodomy morally permissible.  Fr. Fessio used the analogy of a mugger using a padded pipe rather than an unpadded pipe to knock people over the heads.  Would the more merciful use of the padding justify the mugging?  Once the subject is turned away from attention-getting sex, the matter becomes very clear.  You can read their explanations at www.catholicworldreport.com .

The papal spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombari, S.J. added this on November 24:

… the pope takes into consideration an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality may represent a real risk to the life of another person. In such a case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, “a first step in a movement toward a more human sexuality,” as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

It seems to me that the Pope is saying that there can be multiple sins involved.  If a person with a deadly disease would copulate to deliberately infect the other person, that would be the sin of malicious homicidal intent, and that could render sinful even an otherwise permissible marriage act, and it would add to the sinfulness of any copulation that is already immoral by reason of not being a true marriage act.  If a person who knows he has AIDS or is HIV positive copulates with a healthy person, the infected person adds at least the sin of rashly endangering the health and life of another person.  Whether the copulation is homosexual or heterosexual, the use of a condom to try to slow down the transmission of the disease could be considered as at least a step in the right direction of trying not to harm someone.  However, such an action even with the best intention in no way lessens the evil of the non-marital copulation, just as the use of padding on a pipe doesn’t justify mugging.

I still think the Pope missed a good opportunity for teaching about the immorality of sodomy, as I wrote in my blog of November 22.

Please pray for the Pope every day.  The office of the papacy does not carry with it a guarantee of never making mistakes in prudence.  He really needs to give the world an instruction on sexual morality.  It is no longer just a private matter.  The immoral use of sexuality has generated several of the largest health and social problems in the world today.  It’s probably too late for him to come out with a Casti Connubii 80th anniversary encyclical by December 31st but it’s certainly not too late for him to have something of that nature ready by Ash Wednesday.  If that sounds like a good idea to you, maybe it might help for him to hear from you.  Spread the word.  A small avalanche of mail might give him the encouragement he needs.  A suggestion follows.

John F. Kippley
November 27, 2010

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI; Apostolic Palace; 00120 Vatican City; Europe.  Or you can email him at benedictxvi@vatican.va.

Your Holiness: The world needs your firm guidance on matters of human sexuality.  Sexual morality is one of the most important social justice issues of our day.  Please give us an encyclical or something to reaffirm the teaching of Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.  Ash Wednesday might be an appropriate time to publish such guidance.  Sincerely…

Posted in Morality | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »