Why isn't contraception one of the so-called Five Non Negotiables?

[rug]

The usual five non negotiables are:

Abortion

Euthanasia

Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human Cloning

Homosexual Marriage

It's as if it's better to use a condom, which is apparently negotiable, than to risk having an abortion. I find the Church's teachings on sex to be internally contradictory and inconsistent.

And why on earth is gay marriage the equivalent of abortion and euthanasia? It makes us all look ridiculous.

Is there any coherent argument for these non negotiables?

[hedgehog]

1. Never heard of these items being called the 5 non-negotiables.

[rug]

2. It's all in here.

http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Catholic_VG_Bulletin_4_Web.pdf

[hedgehog]

3. I love the Web:

From Wiki:

A 2004 complaint to the Internal Revenue Service by the Pro-choice front organization Catholics for a Free Choice forced to an IRS investigation of Catholic Answers that Keating described as costly and onerous. As a result, he formed a new organization with a separate 501(c)(4) tax status, called Catholic Answers Action, that continued publishing his "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" <1>, containing positions on five "non-negotiable" issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage) and instructing readers not to vote for candidates on the wrong side of those issues. Some diocesan lawyers in California and Wisconsin <2> had earlier attempted to suppress this voting guide in 2004. No official endorsement of this guide has been offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops nor any official Church body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Keating

[rug]

4. Here is the bishops' official statement.

Keating's is a blunt distillation of this.

www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

[hedgehog]

5. Hmmmm....I wouldn't call it a blunt distallation, I'd call it selective editting.

The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic
goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. All the life issues are
connected, for erosion of respect for the life of any individual or group in society
necessarily diminishes respect for all life. The moral imperative to respond to the
needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education,
and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be
legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means. Catholics must seek the best ways to
respond to these needs. As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught, “ has the
right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper
development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care,
and, finally, the necessary social services” (Pacem in Terris, no. 11).

Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is
never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction
of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The
purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act
of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the
direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are
always wrong.


Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of
framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of
the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually.
For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully
opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law,
he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the
harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible

We also promote a culture of life by
supporting laws and programs that encourage childbirth and adoption over
abortion and by addressing poverty, providing health care, and offering other
assistance to pregnant women, children, and families.

The Church has raised fundamental moral concerns
about preventive use of military force.8 Our Church honors the commitment
and sacrifice of those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, and also recognizes
the moral right to conscientious objection to war in general, a particular war, or a
military procedure.

68. Even when military force can be justified as a last resort, it should not be indiscriminate
or disproportionate. Direct and intentional attacks on noncombatants
in war and terrorist acts are never morally acceptable. The use of weapons of mass
destruction or other means of warfare that do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers is fundamentally immoral.
The United States has a responsibility to work
to reverse the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and to reduce
its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction by pursuing progressive nuclear
disarmament. It also must end its use of anti-personnel landmines and reduce
its predominant role in the global arms trade. The war in Iraq confronts us with
urgent moral choices. We support a “responsible transition” that ends the war in a
way that recognizes the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror,
minimizes the loss of life, and addresses the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the refugee
crisis in the region, and the need to protect human rights, especially religious
freedom. This transition should reallocate resources from war to the urgent needs
of the poor.
69. Society has a duty to defend life against violence and to reach out to victims
of crime. Yet our nation’s continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be
justified. Because we have other ways to protect society that are more respectful
of human life, the USCCB supports efforts to end the use of the death penalty
and, in the meantime, to restrain its use through broader use of DNA evidence,
access to effective counsel, and efforts to address unfairness and injustice related to
application of the death penalty.



As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single
issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a
single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the
promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from
receiving support.


Note that that last paragraph uses the word"may", not the word "must"!

This is a 42 page document which is far more thoughtful than I expected it to be. I wonder if a sister wrote it.

[rug]

6. You're right, Keating ia a zealot with an agenda.

There is much admirable in Catholic moral and social teaching. It is wrong to try to squeeze it into a narrow electoral position like many dioceses are trying this year.

I don't know if a sister wrote it but I'm sure it's the result of a committee with a lot of input.

[hedgehog]

7. I was thinking about this over night and it reminded me of Yeats:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

The bishops buried what they had to say in a lengthy document that few will read. It always seems as if they are afraid to really preach the Good News.

[rug]

8. Amen.

And that's an excellent quote.

[nxylas]

9. Because it doesn't benefit the Republican Party

That's the only reason that those are non-negotiable while capital punishment, for example, isn't, despite being condemned by the Catholic Church just as forcefully as abortion (I think, I'm not a Catholic, so apologies if I've got that wrong).

[mrs_p]

10. well, euthanasia

in a broad sense includes capital punishment, which the church is against.

edit - wrong verb

[hedgehog]

11. Because the people this tract was aimed at use contraception, but don't

ever see themselves in a situation where the other items would apply. Humans are great at making rules for other people!

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4
They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5
4 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6
5 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7
greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8
6 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11
The greatest among you must be your servant.
12
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13
7 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven 8 before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.
14
) 9
15
10 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.
16
11 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.'
17
Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?
18
And you say, 'If one swears by the altar, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gift on the altar, one is obligated.'
19
You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20
One who swears by the altar swears by it and all that is upon it;
21
one who swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it;
22
one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.
23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes 12 of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.
24
13 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!
25
14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.
26
Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.
27
15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth.
28
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.
29
16 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, 17 you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
30
and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.'
31
Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets;
32
now fill up what your ancestors measured out!
33
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?
34
18 Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,
35
so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
36
Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37
19 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!
38
Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.
39
I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Personally, I think it's because contraception affects too many people

The five they list really only directly affect a small portion of Catholics. But the fact of the matter is that Catholics aren't having thirteen kids (like my great grandma) anymore. So many of them must be using birth control.

It's easier to agree that something is unequivocally wrong if it never directly affects you. But if they were to really push the no contraception thing, parishioners would have take issue with it because so many of them use contraception. Catholics are not going to stop using contraception so it's a losing argument for the Church. If they really push it, it will a.) make them look ridiculous and b.) make them look weak because no one will listen.

[rug]

13. I think you're right, that's likely a large part of it.

And if so, that's sad. Because this poltically weighted stance is directed squarely at those who least need these attacks. And to do so, while tacitly condoning the "moral sins" of the majority, undermines the Church's authority to speak credibly on anything, moral or political.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

14. Because there's no unified front on contraception.

The leadership of the Church can get behind those four of those five fairly easily because they involve the dignity of life (although the history of the Church's stance on abortion is interesting). Homosexual marriage has tradition and (arguably) Scripture running against it. Contraception is a little fuzzier because it involves the potentiality of life rather than life itself. Also, I'm not aware of any major theological works in the tradition of the Church that explicitly deals with contraception. As for Scripture, the only examples I can think of are the story of Onan from Genesis (it deals with spilling seed and where the term onanism comes from) and Timothy. But in the case of Onan, it has been commented that Onan's crime was not necessarily wasting sperm but denying his brother's widow her right to have a child. As for Timothy, I believe the argued prohibition is grouped in with the author's warnings against "pharmikon" that alter the body (which has been a passage of hot debate ever since it was written). As a result, it has been difficult for theologians to come to an accord regarding what exactly to do with contraception.

[pnwmom]

15. What is inconsistent about that? Of course using a condom is a less serious

sin than abortion.

On the other hand, I agree with you about gay marriage.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Because then there would be Six Non Negotiables.

:shrug: I never heard of the Five Non Negotiables, actually.

[rug]

17. Glad you contributed. I haven't seen you around lately.

:hi: