The Joy of the Truth » fertilitly

Final Thoughts on YouCat

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:25:33 +0000

OK, I know I let the topic run cold. But I never did address the final objection to the YouCat made by those who are calling for the YouCat to be recalled.

They claim that the YOUCAT gives confusing (some say ambiguous others say erroneous) catechesis on human sexuality and end of life issues.

Sexuality

So once again we turn to the YouCat itself to see what it teaches. Here’s what I found:

#403: “Sexuality must not be separated from love: they must go together.”
#404: “A chaste love is a love that defends itself against all the internal and external forces that might destroy it. That person is chaste who has consciously accepted his sexuality and integrated it well into his personality.”
#405: “Someone lives chastely when he is free to be loving and is not the slave of his drives and emotions.”

The YouCat teaches strongly against the sins of fornication, masturbation, prostitution pornography, and rape. It also teaches very clearly on homosexuality.

The YouCat also teaches clearly that sexual intimacy belongs in marriage, and that its purpose is the creation of love and life. It talks about the importance of children.

The YouCat teaches that contraception is evil but that natural family planning is a morally acceptable way to regulate birth.

End of Life Issues

#379: “Euthanasia – killing the handicapped, the sick, and the dying – is also forbidden.”
#382: “To bring about death directly is always against the commandment ‘You shall not kill’ (Ex 20:13). In contrast, to stand by and assist a dying person is humane and even obligatory. [2278-2279]. What really matters is whether a dying person is killed or allowed to die. Someone who kills a dying person (euthanasia) breaks the Fifth Commandment.

The YouCat makes the differentiation between ending someone’s life and assisting someone in the dying process. This is a morally valid distinction.It teaches that ordinary care should never be discontinued, but that extraordinary care may be refused. The YouCat properly applies the principles of ordinary & extraordinary care and double effect – two important principles for dealing with the difficult end of life decisions.

Overall Analysis

I honestly started this investigation with some concern. If the YouCat was shoddily done or worse yet teaching error, I certainly didn’t want to promote it or sell it. However, my investigation assured me that the criticisms of the YouCat are not well founded.

What I like about the YouCat is that it presents the teachings of the Universal Catechism in simple, easily digested segments. Of course, that same quality means that the YouCat is not a complete resource in itself.

As a teacher, I would confidently use the YouCat in place of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But I would use it in tandem with a good textbook and with my own teaching. The YouCat offers an official voice of the Church, which can be expanded upon by the teacher.

In conclusion, the YouCat is an awesome resource for catechists, educators, families and youth as part of their education and formation.

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:00:43 +0000

The Spring 2003 edition of Wilson Quarterly ran an article called, “What is Natural?” The author, Andrew Stark, was exploring the standards used by insurance companies to decide what treatments to cover and which ones not to cover. One of the standards that he explores is the classic standard of a true medication or treatment returning the human body to natural functioning. Of course, like a true modernist, Stark then asks the question what exactly is natural? One example that he gives is the question of covering Viagra but not birth control pills. The idea of returning to the body to natural functioning would seem to indicate that Viagra should be covered since it returns the natural procreative functioning of the male, and that contraception should not be covered because it works against the natural procreative functioning of female. Then Stark pulls the standard modernist trick “what if.”

But suppose we view “natural” sexuality in recreational, not procreative, terms. Since “most Viagra users are men aged 50–75, hardly peak biological years for procreation,” a writer in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out a few years ago, “the specter of ‘recreational’ use is hard to ignore.” Viagra users are not fulfilling their natural functioning but thumbing their noses at it. After all, as Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Isn’t sexual impotence God’s gentle way of saying to a 75-year-old man, ‘You’ve had enough’?” Contraception, by contrast, enables a woman “to enjoy sex,” Paige Shipman of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood told me, precisely by “eliminating a direct threat to her natural functioning: the ravages on her body that would result from having to bear 12 to 15 children.”

So if sex is understood in procreative terms, Viagra promotes natural functioning and contraception thwarts it. If it’s understood in recreational terms, Viagra frequently mocks natural functioning and contraception protects it. [1. Stark, Andrew. "What's Natural?" Wilson Quarterly. Spring 2003. 55-56.]

This common modernist fallacy creates a false supposition on which to base an argument. The argument itself seems perfectly logical, but the very premise on which it is based is made up out of thin air. “Suppose we just change the rules.”

For what reason would we consider sexuality from a recreational viewpoint? It is obvious to human reason that the purpose of human sexuality is greater than pleasure alone. It is equally obvious that at least part of that purpose is procreative. While there are many things in human life that bring pleasure, there are very few for which pleasure is the ultimate purpose because pleasure is such a low good on the hierarchy of human needs.

Of course, once you start heading down a false trail of logic, it is easy to remain misled. Paige Shipman’s comment about contraception preserving a woman’s natural functioning from the ravages of her body that result from having 12 to 15 children is a completely spurious argument. First of all, chemical contraception ravages the body even more than natural pregnancy — artificially aging the cervix, making the body more susceptible to cancer, and causing infertility. On the other hand, the woman’s natural fertility functioning makes it unlikely that she will ever bear 12 to 15 children. The application of little human reasoning to her natural fertility cycling guarantees it. The woman can use natural family planning to limit the number of children she has without using chemicals that would further damage her body.

Modernists like the “what if” game. It allows them to create a logical-sounding argument that calls truth into question while at the same time it makes no real claim to truth itself. It’s a dangerous form of propaganda that can do real harm.

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:08:15 +0000

Our culture now considers shutting down the healthy fertility system and killing babies to be basic woman’s health. Long ago the abortion movement abandoned their slogan “safe, legal, and rare.” They are now successfully pushing to make abortion everyday, commonplace, and accepted medical practice. The practice of medicine used to be considered the practice of making a sick person whole and healthy. It is now becoming a commodity business that offers whatever the customer thinks he or she wants. Even while the morally reprehensible act of abortion is constantly under fire and is increasingly unpopular, activists are moving to make abortion a basic human right on the international stage.

Top Abortion Law Firm Says Government Funded Abortion is a Human Right
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A top abortion-rights law firm recently released its conclusion that the last decade of international legal trends indicate that abortion is not only an international human right, but that government funding is part of that right. They claim that the “vicious” health care debate in the United States over abortion funding shows that the U.S. is flouting international law.

In “Reproductive Rights at the Start of the 21st Century: Global Progress, Yet Backpedaling on Gains in U.S.,” the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) argues that “funding for abortion services has increasingly been recognized as a necessary tool for ensuring access to a fundamental human right.”

C-fam.org

We need to shout from the rooftops! True woman’s health is making sure her body, including her fertility system, does what it is designed to do. True woman’s freedom is the ability to choose to enjoy her sexuality within the context of marriage and family love so that she is not used as an object of pleasure and so that her sexuality fulfills the purpose of its power: to create family love.

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:00:22 +0000

A lot of buzz has been going around about the attempts made by Vermont and Ohio state legislatures to remove “sexting” (sending out naked pictures of others by cell phone) from the list of felonies that could label someone a sexual predator.

Some commentators have criticized Vermont and Ohio for not taking sexting (which is done especially by teenagers) seriously enough. Others have lauded them for saving young adults from a lifetime of stigma and legal problems due to youthful indiscretion. At the heart of this debate is the question, “How much should government legislate morality?”

I have to say that I agree with those who support removing sexting from the felony class of crimes. Sexting is not a sign of a sexual predator (though it can certainly be used for sexual harassment). It is a sign that young adults are not being taught to respect their body or their sexuality. This is the kind of respect that has to be taught in the home. While the government and law enforcement may need to back off from punishing texting, parents, teachers and our society need to step up.

The good thing about the various responses to sexting is that I have not yet heard anyone claim that it is a good thing, or that it is no big deal. Even Ellen Goodman, known for her lack of sexual wisdom, went no further than coming close to calling it good:

The vast majority of pictures are sent to romantic partners. A lot of what we are seeing is young people exploring trust and intimacy. But it’s often boyfriends — or ex-boyfriends — who hold the trump photos. And when that trust is broken and photos hit cyberspace, it’s girls who pay a social price in humiliation and ruined reputation.

Eighteen-year-old Jessica Logan of Ohio committed suicide after her boyfriend put her naked photos out in public, but it was also girls who bullied and harassed her. The girl who trusted was socially ostracized more than the boy who violated that trust. Go figure.

Of course, she cannot resist finding within the issue a feminist cause. That aside, she almost assumes that what’s happening with sexting is part of a healthy process of “exploring trust and intimacy.” Of course, to “explore” trust and intimacy by sending naked pictures of yourself to your “lover” is like “exploring” a financial investment by selling your home and all of your belongings to make an initial investment to see how things go. Sex is the physical sign of a willingness to totally give yourself in trust and intimacy to another person. It should be the last step in the growth of a relationship after trust and intimacy have been explored through friendship and a lifelong commitment to raising a family together has been made.

However, to Ms. Goodman’s credit, she does actually admit that sexting is misguided – a bad idea.

We do not need to criminalize sexting. Instead, parents need to step up and ask themselves some serious questions:

Is my adolescent child mature enough to use new technology wisely?

I’ll give you a hint -for most high school students the answer is no, despite the fact that most high school students have cell phones with cameras, etc.

Does my adolescent child need a cell phone?

Again, just because all of her friends do doesn’t mean your daughter needs one too. The answer is probably no.

Does my child know how to honor his or her body and fertility?

Having “The Talk” is not enough — and students in high school do not learn how to respect the bodies and their fertility even in “sex ed.” Parents – this is your job and it takes commitment, time and knowledge!

Does my child focus on developing friendships first before starting to date?

Dating in high school is focused on two things – status and sex. Students who do not have a boyfriend or a girlfriend feel unwanted, like they are losers. Many times dating relationships become a selfish quest for how much two people can snatch from each other – emotionally, financially and/or sexually. Selfless love is best learned when a romantic relationship starts out as a friendship and slowly progresses toward romance, giving two people a chance to know each other and slowly grow in trust and intimacy.

Parents, if you need help teaching your children to respect their bodies and their fertility, and to grow in trust and intimacy the right way, check out the Parent’s Place website. This is a parenting resource put out by the Diocese of La Crosse Office of Family Life. I had the honor of working on this website as designer and secondary writer. It is a great resource for parents.

Some are called to extraordinary restitution

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:11:42 +0000

I just had the pleasure of speaking to youth at a family event in our neighboring diocese. The theme of the conference was God’s plan for our sexuality and family. When my talk on “True Sex” was finished, I sat in on the end of the adult track. I missed the actual speaker, but I did catch the testimony of a couple who through a deeper conversion to Christ became convicted about the wife’s sterilization.

The wife had been nearly bullied into getting a sterilization as a young woman. She was told that there was severe medical need for the sterilization due to the dangers posed by pregnancy complications. She was told, “If you get pregnant again, you will die.” At the time she had only a vague sense that sterilization was wrong. She was hit especially by the permanence of the procedure. She had serious doubts, but in the end she trusted her doctors, family and friends who were all telling her to have the tubal ligation.

Years later, her heart was moved closer to Christ and she was convicted that she had committed a serious sin^T. Eventually her husband joined her conviction and together they sought out a way to right the wrong by getting the sterilization reversed. Of course, they met with serious opposition from doctors who said, “Why would you want to do this? You have two kids. You don’t have to worry about getting pregnant. Why go back?” But they persisted and eventually found help through One More Soul. The operation was successful.

It was a beautiful story of conversion and restitution. The couple went through quite a trial (not to mention major surgery) to undo their sin. Their suffering and struggle was part of their restitution. Restitution is part of the conversion process, which usually runs the path of:

Compunction: conviction of sin
Confession & reconciliation: usually both personal and sacramental
Penance: making some act that turns the heart more completely toward sorrow for sin and connects us to the forgiveness of Christ on the Cross.
Restitution: putting right the wrong done by the sin

The only problem that I had with this beautiful testimony is that it left the impression that sterilization was a necessary step in being forgiven for the sin. I think the wife even told the priest that she could not accept Christ’s forgiveness until she got the tubal ligation reversed. The fact is that sterilization reversal is major surgery, and like all major surgery carries a very large risk. The risk of life outweighs the evil of the sin enough to make sterilization reversal extraordinary restitution. Extraordinary restitution is not required for forgiveness. Let me say that again. Those who have been sterilized do not need to go through major surgery to have their sterilizations reversed before they can be forgiven by Christ.

That is to take nothing away from the experience and personal convictions of this couple. In the privacy of a couple’s own conscience, the Holy Spirit may lead a couple to undergo heroic measures of restitution. This is especially the case when further conversion is necessary. Some are indeed called to extraordinary restitution.

As the husband continued the story, he shared that while his wife struggled with the choice to have her fallopian tubes tied, he internally rejoiced in his wife’s sterilization. Furthermore, while his wife became convicted that sterilization was wrong, he was enjoying the sex without consequences and the higher standard of living he was able to have with only two children. Obviously, God had more work to do on his heart. I believe that the Holy Spirit did indeed call this couple to extraordinary restitution to complete the husband’s conversion from selfishness to generous love.

In the end, God did bless their conversion toward life with new life. They had another child and have learned to accept the risks of pregnancy and the rigors and joys of parenthood in truly selfless love.

On the other hand, I know a couple in the same situation who underwent a similar conversion who decided that they were not called to sterilization reversal. Their conversion and dedication to life is no less complete. The Holy Spirit did not call this couple to extraordinary restitution because their conversion to life was complete without it.

Sterilization reversal is extraordinary restitution. When extraordinary restitution is necessary to complete one’s conversion, the Holy Spirit will call us to it. If he does not call us to it, we are not required to make extraordinary restitution. We need to discern the call of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts. However, we must be careful not to be misled by scrupulosity on one hand or by selfishness and a desire for the easy way out on the other hand. The Christian life is one of balance and careful discernment. But it is always a life led by love.

End Note

^TThere is no doubt that sterilization is morally wrong. However, the woman who gave the testimony may have fallen victim to a misunderstanding of what constitutes a sin. It seems to me through her story that the pressures to get herself sterilized were great. The greatest influence was perhaps the voice of the professional as her doctor told her that sterilization was necessary to save her life. A person is only culpable for sin to the degree that she knows that it is evil and freely chooses it anyway. Her story indicated that she did not have true knowledge of the evil, and that she was practically coerced into the decision. Therefore, while the procedure is still gravely evil, she was probably not guilty of actual sin. Once she gained the knowledge, she chose against the sterilization in the form of remorse for her action. That choice was true contrition. I got the sense that this woman carried with her some unnecessary guilt. On the other hand, God used her guilt to bring her healing, not only of her body but also of her heart.

Donor Registry Allows IVF Conceived Children to Unite with Biological “Donor” Parents and Siblings

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:01:59 +0000

The Catholic teaching on “new birth technologies” such as artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and human cloning, is among the most vilified of Her moral stances. However, one need not search very long to see the wisdom in the Church’s constant teaching that reproduction needs to take place in the context of the love of the marital act.

Take this article, for example: Donor Registry Allows IVF Conceived Children to Unite with Biological “Donor” Parents and Siblings.

I think I have mentioned before that my wife and I look with apprehension toward the day when we have to explain to our two adopted children the complexities of their birth. At least in our case we can tell them how much their birth family loved them – enough to give them a better life through adoption than their volatile circumstances allowed. However, nothing can remove the fact that their right to be conceived in an act of love was stripped away from them.

Now think about these poor children conceived by artificial insemination seeking out their biological fathers. Do they expect these men – who were paid to ejaculate into a cup – to embrace them with open arms, or even to have the pride of fatherhood? Truthfully, these men probably don’t even want to be bothered with the children conceived through their business transaction. Artificial insemination has made human reproduction into a cold business, leaving children with less connection to their biological heritage than our own adopted children.

This is not to comment on the value of these children. All human life is precious, no matter how it was conceived. However, these children will face great alienation because our culture has chosen to separate reproduction from the act of love and to make children into a commodity.

The Joy of the Truth » fertilitly

Final Thoughts on YouCat

Sexuality

End of Life Issues

Overall Analysis

Related Links:

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Related Links:

Standard Medical Practice and International Rights

Related Links:

Sexting, Parental Standards and the Law

Related Links:

Some are called to extraordinary restitution

End Note

Related Links:

Donor Registry Allows IVF Conceived Children to Unite with Biological “Donor” Parents and Siblings

Related Links: