Is God the Answer?

In paragraph eight Pope Paul VI
talks about "God's Loving Design." Within the paragraph he states, "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. The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church."

In short, what I interpret, this is stating that the result of someone's marriage is a predetermined notion set up by God himself. It is up the couple to complete this design by bringing in the
light of God into their relationship to better themselves, their relationship, and their new lives together. Above all this, the ones who are baptized have been touched specifically by this light of God, and their relationship is blessed because of the union with Christ. So the ones who accept Christ and bring him, it, some entity, whatever the case may be, into their marriage it
shall be constituted, blessed, and fulfilled. The image above depicts this trinity Pope Paul VI speaks of perfectly; husband + wife + God = Marriage.

Now when it comes to taking a stance about this aspect of marriage it is hard to say that I'm not on the fence about it; but again when is religion not a topic where most are on the fence? While I
am personally not religious, I can see why accepting Christ into a marriage will benefit and shed light onto the married couple. There is something/one to believe in; to call on in times of desperate need; to believe the marriage is blessed for eternity and Christ is the reason. This aspect definitely brings unity and strength to the marriage, especially for the ones devoted to Christ from the beginning. On the other hand, what about those who are not religious?
Or don't even believe in a God at all? Because this is the fact, does that mean their marriage is not blessed, or is broken and destined for turmoil? There are many loopholes to Christ being the reason for a sacred and blessed marriage. So in terms of a strong marriage, one that is founded around the belief in God and the arrangement predetermined by Christ himself, I will say this aspect of a marriage is a good thing; only for reasons of moral strength. While I don't believe in
it myself, I think it can make people believe in their marriage.
In regards to the image I posted at the beginning of this blog I will say it obviously grossly oversimplifies the aspects, and components, of a working marriage. When I think of a marriage and how it changes the people involved, God is only one factor in a repertoire of aspects that shape a marriage. Not only does the marriage change those involved, but the people change the meaning of marriage, even the word. The marriage between a man and women, entirely off the beaten path in aspects of religion and marriage will have a total different marriage than those accepting God into their marriage. All these aspects of course root back to the person's upbringing and background. It is easy to say that God is the reason for an enlightened marriage, but there are too many different levels of a marriage to make this generalization. Too many aspects endorse the change of a marriage, and the lives of those who put rings on each other’s fingers: children, finances, family, friends, emotions, stability, locations, age....and on, and on, and on. So yes, I will say that the belief of God in a marriage can be a grounded aspect in a strong marriage; this is where I believe Pope Paul IV to be correct; but to say that it is the only way for a marriage to work and be blessed is entirely off the charts of making any sense at all. Nobody has to bring in Christ for a marriage to work, just as the marriage of one culture will be entirely different from another. This all depends on how the marriage changes us, and how we interpret the marriage to change it.

Birth Control and It's health effects

In paragraph 14 it says, "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." Meaning clearly that birth control should not be used. However, last week for a different class I came across an article that stated there was a higher risk in getting ovarian, breast, and uterine cancer, because they are abstinent. So pretty much, because they don't have any sex, they have a more frequent pms cycle, weakening their immune systems. Is this fair to nuns? Should they be allowed to be on birth control for the mere fact of straightening out their menstrual cycles? I believe that they should. It also says in their nun doctrine or whatever they sign their lives away to that if them and their doctor decide on different medications to be taken then it's acceptable to take them. Birth control is considered a medication and if it lowers the risk of three different types of cancer then by all means it should be up to the nuns.

In the following paragraph, 15, it says "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." Again referencing things such as plan B, or abortion. Now Plan B isn't nearly as serious as the topic of abortion but some have discussed the two side by side. Plan B isn't killing a planted seed at all, I did a little background research on how it truly works and found this: Each pill in the 2-pill set contains .75 mg of levonorgestrel. Doctors believe that these boosted levels of levonorgestrel either block the sperm and egg from coming in contact, or by stopping the ovulation process. I'm sorry Mr. Pope but some people dont want to leave their procreative decisions up to a greater power. The egg comes from that woman, and the sperm from the man, not from some higher power, it's not like god has literally anything to do with it. Leave couples alone, allow them to choose what to do with their lives.

Let God decide

The Pope states that infertility is un-natural. In paragraph 11 the pope says "It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed". However many in today's world believe that sex has become more pleasure oriented versus the natural process of creating life. The Pope has generally old beliefs as I see it. The Pope also states that not every sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. "The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has 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". Since I believe that in today's world sex has become a act of pleasure, it defeats the purpose that those who have intercourse are not always married and that having a child would only tie two people who may not be in love together and forever. The Pope believes that sexual intercourse should only be between two people who are married and eternally in love. So since sexual intercourse has become a act of pleasure, I'm sure the Pope would be against un-loved, un-married intercourse that leads to children. The only way that the Pope wins this argument is that sexual intercourse shall not be permitted to those whom are unmarried like the religions states. But since sex is a choice of the person and their control over their body that will never be the case. This also brings up the case of abortion. The Pope is against abortion because he believes that god has a reason for all things and that pregnancy is a natural occurance of god's blessing and choice. But how can one deny a woman of an abortion where the child being born was made of un-loved and malevolent intent, such as rape. Who then can say that because having a child is natural one has to live with the fact that their child will be one made from hate, a constant reminder that the person was raped and forced to struggle to take care of a child they did not want or afford to have? Although being pro-life is very good for people and the future of many children, sometimes the very subject contradicts many aspects of life such as the one I've just stated. Whether choosing to be infertile or choosing to have an abortion, the belief of others really don't matter, the choice may not be the right choice, but in the end it is your own body, your own mind, and your own choice. And if there is anything that god gave us, it is our natural brain, our natural sense of what is right or wrong, and with everyone it changes, but ultimately god gave us a choice, and we choose what we believe in.

"To Scientists"

In paragraph 14, Paul VI makes two important statements concerning scientists: they “considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births”, but also “by their research establish the truth of the Church's claim that ‘there can be no contradiction between two divine laws—that which governs the transmitting of life and that which governs the fostering of married love.’ "

In other words, I believe Paul VI admits science has great influence over the human life (as demonstrated by our ability to assist or terminate births), but that scientists need to be careful to avoid overstepping boundaries. From Paul VI’s writings, it appears as if there are two realms, one in which humans may facilitate healthy births, and one in which God will actually create the possibility of birth; humans may not step into the realm of God and play “creator”. Even simpler yet, scientists, as based in Catholic faith, have no place in limiting or aborting pregnancies, or creating pregnancies (despite having the means to).

What would that ultimately mean for our society as a whole? No contraceptives (humans should only have sex with the objective of reproducing), no in vitro fertilization (it violates the rights of the child to be born directly as the result of marriage), and no research on embryos (unless there is no chance of harming the life of the unborn child). There is one catch to these stipulations, however: once a human life has begun (as recognized immediately upon the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), that life must be protected as they now have the rights as any other innocent person.

My stance on the issue of science and births? Mostly, I’m pro-science (despite my Catholic upbringing). I think sex can be used for more than just reproduction. I think science can help the sterile couples in conceiving a child. I think abortion, at times, can be the right choice (Do you disagree? Research Tay-Sach’s and tell me you really would want your child to be born with disease like that, having 100% certainty it would die well before it turned 10 years old).

Contraceptives, abortions, and lab-created fertilizations have their place. I believe science betters our society – we can now have fewer unwanted pregnancies (contraception and abortion), but also more desired pregnancies (in vitro fertilization).

I believe every life is important. I believe every life has integrity. Contraception, abortion, and in vitro fertilization – if applied to the correct situations – can make sure that happens.

Pope's Concerns

Pope Paul outlines several major consequences that may arise through the use of artificial birth control. According to Chapter 17 paragraph 21, in the Humanae Vitae, "An effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” Here he is reflecting on his thoughts as to why contraceptive use should be looked down upon. He argues that man will lose respect for the woman and no longer care for her mental state. Instead of seeing her value, he will perceive her as an entity; one as, “a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment.” In other words, when spouses exploit the intimate action, they do not act with dignity and thus they jeopardize their own happiness. By treating, "their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes", they risk treating each other as articles to be easily disposed of. Yet, this is what our culture has currently become. From birth control pills to abortions, contraceptives are quite common. Contraceptives, in a sense, have become a social construct in our culture. Not present a century ago, we our society has given importance to the use/disuse of these 'unnatural' birth control methods. It may also be safe to assume that it has evolved, in a way, to become the 'natural law'. And although some men do view women as material objects, it may not necessarily be attributed to the rampant use of birth control. Contraceptives have helped in keeping global population down, as women are much more likely to advance their career before settling down with a family, a direct example of the change in the culture from merely decades ago.

Pope Paul also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would eliminate the parameters that are currently in place, as couples would have an abundance of contraceptives at their disposal. It is towards this point that he comments, “we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions -—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed.” The Pope feared that the wide use of contraceptives would give, “public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” In other words, he meant that the government would impose contraceptive methods on people, which would result in the loss of their autonomy.

However, the forced program to decrease the growth rate in China shows the stark extreme toward which governments will take population programs. As in China’s one-child policy, the government officially restricted married, urban couples to having only one child. In this case the government addressed the fact that China was becoming increasingly overpopulated. Yet through the policy, the government does not deter the intimate act between couples, as long as the proper precautions are taken (contraceptives) and only one child is produced. As a result of the law, the Chinese government estimated that it had three to four hundred million fewer people in as a result of the one-child policy, than it would have had otherwise. All in all, I disagree with the Pope. As is clearly shown by China’s one-child policy, the interference of the government benefited the country as the rapid rate of increase of the population declined significantly. The graph on the right proves this, as the population growth leveled out after the introduction of the law. The consequences of this law have helped China greatly. On a large scale, it decreased the risk of overpopulating the world as well as that of draining the Earth’s natural resources.

From marriage to life

In paragraph 9 titled with Married Love of the Doctrinal Principals written by Pope Paul, he mentions something about marriage and love. By his definition of them and his ordered structure of life, he makes the statement that marriage is not only between the couple themselves, which stands for all the man and woman, but includes the God and the spirit. Also he thinks that both sides of the couple should bear all the difficulties and work through them together no matter what kind feelings they will have during this procedure to guarantee a so-called “profound and enduring happiness” because love and reproduction will accompany them all the way and that is his meaning of marriage.

By saying “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”, he tries to confirm the ideal style of marriage. But it sounds like a proposal when you ask for a marriage rather than the illustration of the real marriage life. Love and reproduction do contribute in a way, but not for all the couples who are married now.

Take the reproduction as the first issue, it is not that every couple does want get a child. There are families named as DINK, which stands for double income no kids. People have their own rights to choose their life style. For some couples, bringing up a child means a burden more than a present of God to them. As an Asian, I totally understand the culture for family to have a child or children. There are lots of sayings about this topic as “There are three unfilial things in life, among which having no kids is the worst”. But time changes, we cannot use the old values and traditions as restrictions in a new society. Yes, it seems that it is imperfect for a family without children but what if this family cannot give the child a good condition to grow up. Once the baby is born, the parents should take the responsibility of his/her future. We cannot achieve the so-called “profound happiness” by sacrificing a child’s happiness. Life is one-way and you can never take it back afterwards.

As to the love, it is neither that all the people who in love could end in a marriage nor that every married couple is still together because of love. There is no doubt that every couple who is still together will make a perfect in the end because those unhappy couples just brake up or get divorced half way there. It may not be perfect but fair enough. They do not match each other well, which does not mean there is no love in between. Marriage is not the only way to show what love means. If we let the Pope take the position of two choices, would he choose to give up the marriage for the benefits of both sides or to endure all the difficulties to maintain a so-called “perfect marriage”? No offense but we are just human beings with feelings rather than any gods or spirits who are perfect with no flaws.

So in conclusion, we, as human beings, of course will try our best to get the best results in every aspect of the life. But that does not mean we need to finish everything perfectly, especially for marriage. Life is not defined by a certain structure but expressed by everyone itself. Marriage is just a matter between the two who are experiencing it. So please take off your words with all the definitions, dear Pope. What we want is the truth that even comes from the Renaissance, when we said human rights are much more important than the theocracy.

Responsible Parents

I was raised without a specific religion. I was taught all the same things about right and wrong, but instead being taught those things in a religious sermon, I was taught by my mother. In paragraph 10, the Pope talks about what is considered a "responsible parent". " In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society." In this view, my mother would not be a responsible parent. Although I essentially received the same teachings as the kids who went to church, I did not receive them in the context of God's word. Therefore, by not exposing me to the teachings of the Bible, she was not fulfilling her duty toward God.

Another section of this paragraph says the part of being a responsible parent is that "they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life". In other words, they are to trust in God to determine when they will have a baby. In this aspect, my parents were responsible parents. They certainly didn't choose for my arrival or take any precautions to prevent it. However, once we account for the fact that my parents never married, they are back to being considered irresponsible parents.

I understand and more or less support the Pope's views on responsible parenthood, but as for the religious aspect of it all, this is where I lose my connection. My parents taught me right and wrong and also let a force other than themselves determine my creation. But without their actions being in the context of God's word, they are deemed irresponsible parents.