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.

marraige and trust

As a teenager who was raised Roman Catholic, I found the Humanae Vitae very interesting. Specifically, I liked paragraph nine, Married Love. The Pope puts what the church values in and what is expected of marriage very eloquently. “It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything…” I think that this quote embodies what it means to be in true love. True love starts out as a friendship and slowly turns into something more. When you have found love that is truly meant to be, you should be more than willing to share everything, in fact, it should be natural to do so. Another quote I really liked from this paragraph is “husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment”. This quote embodies what marriage should be. Married people really should complete each other, and be one person. The wording of this is almost romantic in my opinion. While there are certainly things in the Catholic Church that I don’t necessarily agree with, I believe that this paragraph about what marriage is and should be is near perfect. One thing that could be discussed, which isn’t directly, is the element of trust. The paragraph talks about being faithful and being together until death, but does not touch on how to do that. It does state that “this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties”, and talks about how it is honorable and meritorious to be married, however, nowhere does it say anything about aspects of that. In my opinion, being able to trust one another is right up there with becoming one soul and sharing everything in importance. Without trust, a relationship of any kind is nothing. If I could change one small thing about this section of Humanae Vitae, without changing the principles of the Catholic Church (which once again, I do not necessarily support) or causing great controversy, it would be that trust, as one of the most important parts of marriage, is an important and necessary element of what married love is.

Change is a-coming

“The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.”

Paragraph 2 details the successes accumulated over the years of life. But it’s an interesting “importance” the Pope delineates; an importance that separates the individual from the group, the woman from the man, and the culture from the society. The first paragraph in this section deals with the world and the population’s across it and the resources that play key roles in the existence of those populations. The next two paragraphs talk about the separation of man and woman and their roles in society, life, and culture. The Pope sets on the table that these roles are strict, fixed. But this oxymoron of a rule doesn’t stay fixed in this life time. Populations grow, individuals change, the role of the woman and man shift. But these changes are good. They show a nation that is healthy and heading in the correct direction, contrary to the Pope’s beliefs.

The Pope has a point here though. A point that there have been many changes in our culture, but not all these changes are bad. Yes, there are some, that if we were able to travel back in time we might change, but of course we don’t have that luxury, yet. But these mistakes can be seen as points to improve on. The growing population issue yes is true, but if we all work together we’ll pull through. The role of woman spreading from what was constricting back in the 1920s and further are becoming nonexistent as we see woman climb the ladder for the greater good. And man, always flying to new heights.

I do find at least one fault with the Pope’s message: the argument, although very nicely said, but a bit implicit, of the separation of the roles of woman and man in society. Haven’t we in society come to the point where there is no separation? Where man and woman are equals? The Pope goes on to say, “This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit... 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.” Man and woman are one, yet the Pope says throughout the entire article that it is not alright for artificial birth control. Birth control brings the man and woman closer, it helps them to reach to newer heights with their relationship, to reach for the top point where a child could come in to their lives, but the Pope doesn’t see it that way. The birth control is woman’s way of being able to control that what God has given her to her pace of life. To the Pope the pill is steering women down the wrong path. I believe, on the contrary to “the wrong path” that Pope preaches of, the pill is a step in the right direction. It helps women to learn the goings-on’s of the body and to be able to be ready for when the time comes that she does want to bear a child into this world. The Pope talks of in the first paragraph that there is fear of a vastly growing population that will out run the resources, well the pill helps to counter that increase by giving women the right to chose when they are ready and when they are not. The body and mind have to be one, and sometimes the body reacts too fast for the mind to compensate. Our culture has brought with it change, a change that brings the individual with the population, the woman with the man, and the culture with the society. Our culture today isn’t fixed, it’s ever changing, and the Pope may not like it, but he should brace himself for it, because change is a-coming.

Pope restricts preventing disease in children?

     It is very apparent that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is not allowed in the realm of the Catholic Church. This procedure is available for an expensive price at many fertility clinics throughout the United States. The link below provides access to the website of every PGD fertility clinic in the USA. http://www.ihr.com/infertility/provider/preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-pgd.html

     It is a procedure that takes place after a man and a woman decide to undergo the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In summary, IVF can increase pregnancy chances by extracting eggs from a woman and fertilizing her eggs with the father’s sperm in a Petri dish outside the womb. After these two cells multiply to around 50, they are called a blastomere and are mature enough to be implanted in the uterus. With PGD, right before implantation, the blastomere’s DNA is screened by scientists. At this point in time, PGD is most readily used to prevent serious genetic diseases that could significantly alter/inhibit the child’s life. The most common diseases that are prevented with this procedure are Down syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, and the rare blood disorder Diamond-Blackfan anemia. If this procedure became more readily available to the public, these diseases have the possibility of being eliminated all together.

     The pope clearly states in his publication Humanae Vitae under section 15 of Lawful Therapeutic Means that “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” 

     This statement is fairly straightforward. It says that if a woman is sick, she may be given the available treatment, even if it has consequences of infertility. According to this statement, the process of PGD seems to be acceptable by the Catholic Church. It is a means to cure/prevent diseases. However, what is not often publicized about pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is what happens to the blastomeres that carry disease genes. These balls of cells are discarded, not implanted into the womb, and one could say they are ‘aborted’. The Catholic Church is an advocate of the statement that life begins at conception, and highly condemns abortion. So, which statement should a Catholic follow?

     The Catholic Church formed their statement of beliefs thousands of years ago. This was before the enlightenment, when people obeyed the law of religion and did not know any other way. They did not use science or rational thought. The alteration of culture and society in those days and in the modern world is astonishing. In our world today, it is sometimes difficult to draw the line and make ethical and moral decisions with the advanced technology that is available. Many people in our society, or at least in the Midwestern culture that I have been shaped by, have common values and morals. Many of these values are constructed by the church. In my personal Christian but not Catholic opinion, I think PGD to eliminate high chances of disease is completely ethical and acceptable. In my mind it is only rational to do everything possible to ensure the health of a child. It is my idea of 'responsible parenthood', a term the pope uses often. 

     It is interesting that the Pope mandates that in order to demonstrate responsible parenthood, “a man’s reason and will must exert control over them” (Section 10, Responsible parenthood). The Catholic Church tells men to think rationally and control sexual urges, however they do not allow them to think rationally about discarding 50 cells to ensure a quality life for their children. 

Dear, Pope

hello his highness, i write to you with a couple concerns of a recent release of your views of god's love and his how and what you can and cannot do under his name. I would like to begin by addressing certain issues like"free love" and "married love". To start, you words on free love meaning extra marital, pre marital, and homosexual love which is against the structure of love that god has put up for us i think is highly restrictive. I think that these doctrines of coarse should be held only to those who are believers and true Christians which as we know not everybody is. You state that "every marital act must of necessity must retain its intrinsic relationship to the pro-creation of human life" is of particular puzzlement to me. One can look at the means or reasons why people have sex and come up with many different answers, or one could look at it as a means to nothing. not every marital or pre marital act has to look for a means to an end, in fact i believe that sex can be a meaningless thing that to some people could be as apathetic as a hand shake (which to me is not the case but for some people it is). I think that to put a means to an end to everything under the word of god would be quite crazy. Sex could in fact just fulfill basic human needs for people like human to human contact, procreation, or just romantic love. i believe It is to the individual to decide to what means they wish to act in what manner they wish.

This ties into my next topic of homosexual love and marriage as well. If we do look at marriage or love as a means to an end we can take your definition of a marriage stating "The fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life". The issue i have with this is that it leaves out even heterosexual couple who may be sterile but live a complete Christian life which would deem their marriage not of the gods love structure. after all it is not their fault they cannot have kids because they can;t complete the procreative part of their marital obligations. however, these individuals are certainly capable in raising am adoptive child. The same goes for same sex couples. Partners may have the deepest love for each other and want to bind that love with a marital contract, but are unable to fulfill the pro creative part. If parents are fully supportive and loving toward their kids does it matter what sex they are?

Sorry Pope Paul VI, we can't all be the Duggars

Pope Paul VI had his opinions about sex; his so called natural laws. He believed it was only accepted under God and natural when it was between a husband and his wife. He also believed it was only "legitimate" when it is done the "natural" way without any means of contraception (Paragraph 11). A woman should never limit her fertility, she must always remain fertile because that is considered the word of God. So in todays world, Pope Paul VI would consider the Duggar family the so called "perfect" family and he would consider the rest of the world to be going against the word of God. The majority of the world uses some sort of contraception. It has become this social construction and has evolved into being a current "natural law". It is no longer considered taboo. Today, society tells you to limit and not risk fertility. They ultimately want you to be infertile. According to the Pope, the only lawful birth control is no birth control(paragraph 14). He is probably rolling over in his grave over the Plan B controversy. The Pope's claims are no longer/will never be relevant and have become extremely outdated. Very few still support his claims because the idea of sex has become a norm in society. In the Pope's days, sex was a private and unspoken act. Whereas, today it has become more public and accepted. The idea of sex and contraception is advertised and seen everywhere. In todays world, contraception is the natural way to go about things. It has become the safest, healthiest, and recommend practice. If people went by Pope Paul VI's claims the world's population would be reaching its capacity. Pope Paul VI had the right intentions with his claims. They were his beliefs of how society should live under the word of God. But today they are just not plausible. Contraceptives will remain controversial for religious and political reasons. But for now contraception has become not only a cultural norm but it has become human nature.

Till Death Do Us Part

The part of Humanae Vitae that I find very interesting is about Married Love in paragraph nine. I believe that the Pope’s opinion about married love is a very good viewpoint on social identity. When he says that we are meant 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” I think this is the reason people should get married. They should want to be able to experience not just the good but all the bad that also happens in life by each others side. It also gives very good psychological reasoning since it makes us actually think if we want to spend the rest of our lives with just one person. It truly is a decision that you need to think about for quite awhile and should never be a split decision, since when that happens it typically never ends too well. When the Pope also says “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.” I think this also shows a great example of psychological identity since thinking of not just yourself anymore but for a whole other persons well being as well takes a very emotional toll on some people. However if you truly do love someone, this should come as easy as pie since you will be thinking as one person and want the very best for both of you. Another good consequence of being in love when you’re married is knowing that the other person will be faithful and you will have nothing to ever worry about. Having someone be unfaithful to you is probably one of the lowest things someone could ever do to another person, but when it is solid true love it isn’t even a possibility.