Abortion and Politics

[Matt Hummel]

It was a serious question, Mr. Hummel, how about an answer?
You wrote (re some means of expressing sexual intimacy being wrong):
As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

I asked, Why? And "What is the final destination"?

No, you don't have to draw a map. But what is the "final destination" of sexual expression? And remember the issue here was whether sexuality is only or primarily for procreation and the matter under discussion was those forms of sexual intimacy that do not lead to procreation.

Sigh...

50+ million dead and Charles wants to talk about oral sex.  Fine.

I am surprised that someone given to incesant name dropping of Catholic hierarchs knows so little about Catholic theology.  I am not saying "agrees with," but "knows."

Sexuality, which reaches its fullest expression in the love making between a husband and wife, has both a unitive and a procreative side.  To split off one from the other opens the relationship to a variety of evils. So willful engagement in behaviors that deliebrately seperate the one from the other are wrong.  I recommend for further edification:
Humanae Vitae (Paul VI prety much laid out what would happen.  And for that he was called a repressed hysteric.)
Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

And so the question still stands- Given you position that the cure for the evil of abortion is more & better contraception, woul you cease to advocate the usage of a contraceptive that also funtioned as an abortifacient?

Or is it simply that you, like the ELCA National leadership, talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue and really have no problems with abortion.  After all, the vast majority of children being killed are, from your demographic, "NOKD."

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Hummel writes:
Sigh...
50+ million dead and Charles wants to talk about oral sex.  Fine.
I comment:
1. I did not bring up the topic. Others did.
2. And we are not only talking about that particular form of sexual expression. We are talking about sexual intimacies that are not capable of leading to a pregnancy.

Mr. Hummel writes:
I am surprised that someone given to incesant (sic) name dropping of Catholic hierarchs knows so little about Catholic theology.  I am not saying "agrees with," but "knows."
I comment:
"incesant (sic) name dropping"? I'm wondering just what names of "Catholic hierarchs" I have dropped. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Sexuality, which reaches its fullest expression in the love making between a husband and wife, has both a unitive and a procreative side.  To split off one from the other opens the relationship to a variety of evils. So willful engagement in behaviors that deliebrately (sic) seperate (sic) the one from the other are wrong.
I comment:
And there you go again, equating all of "love making" to that trip all the way to Duluth. I guess you think it is never ever right to stop at Gooseberry Falls.

Mr. Hummel writes:
I recommend for further edification:
Humanae Vitae (Paul VI prety much laid out what would happen.  And for that he was called a repressed hysteric.)
Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

I comment:
News flash. I'm not Roman Catholic. There is no need for me to base my views on those documents. And it appears that as far as Humanae Vitae is concerned, Roman Catholics aren't basing their views on that document either.
News flash. The Roman Catholic Church does not dictate theology and ethics and morality for all of Christendom.

Mr. Hummel writes:
And so the question still stands- Given you (sic) position that the cure for the evil of abortion is more & better contraception, woul (sic) you cease to advocate the usage of a contraceptive that also funtioned (sic) as an abortifacient?
I comment:
I do not have the "position" that the "cure for the evil of abortion is more and better contraception." Where did you get that idea? I do believe that better birth control information can prevent pregnancies that might lead to abortions.
I have said before that I have considerable problems with abortion and some of the attitudes that people have toward abortion. That does not mean that I endorse the radical views of most so-called "pro-life" people any more than I endorse the radical views of some who favor permissive laws regarding abortion.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Or is it simply that you, like the ELCA National leadership, talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue and really have no problems with abortion.  After all, the vast majority of children being killed are, from your demographic, "NOKD."
I comment:
Your views about the mendacity of "the ELCA National leadership" are your own. You state them here so broadly as to be most unfair and unhelpful.
What in the name of the gods of Acronymia is NOKD? I sincerely doubt that my demographic is responsible for the majority of abortions. I doubt that many white, middle-class couples in their 70s are having abortions. But maybe you know something that I don't. 

[DeHall]

What in the name of the gods of Acronymia is NOKD? I sincerely doubt that my demographic is responsible for the majority of abortions. I doubt that many white, middle-class couples in their 70s are having abortions. But maybe you know something that I don't.

Not our kind, Dear.

[Donald_Kirchner]

And there you go again, equating all of "love making" to that trip all the way to Duluth. I guess you think it is never ever right to stop at Gooseberry Falls.

No, you are being intellectually dishonest. He never manifested such a thought. In fact, he wrote of a "lovely sidetrip."

[Charles_Austin]

Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

[cssml]

No, unless you're camping you'd have to go to Two Harbors to find a hotel. That's on the way to Duluth which is then only 22 miles away. Might as well go to where you planned to end up.

I am confused here, when Charles mentioned Mankato as a side trip, I envisioned the origin being somewhere south of Duluth, but with Gooseberry Falls being North of Duluth, one would have to go out of there way to get around Duluth to get to Gooseberry Falls from the south (intentional avoidance of Duluth??).  :-)

[Matt Hummel]

Fine-

Make me eat my words-

I will ask for the umpteenth time for someone to name something the ELCA has done qua ELCA that directly contributes to the reduction of abortions in this or any country.  I mean a new program or intiative, and not the continuation of adoption programs by social service agencies or other programs that were in place before hand.  From 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2009 I know of none.  Since then?  Name one brand spanking new thing the ELCA has done and has publicized as helping to reduce (note- I did not say eliminate) the number of abortions.  Because isn't that what reasonable always say- "We can all agree that there are too many?"

Charles- I draw my thoughts about what you say from what you have written over the years- "When I was in Rome... When Richard John & I... When I was in Geneva... When the Cardinal said...."

And what is so hard about saying, "Yes- I would change" or "No- I would not" with regards to a contraceptive that functions as an abortifacient.  I posed the question generally in this forum because I am genuinely interested in the answer becaus it helps me determine which paths of conversation might be most useful.

So answer, or don't.  But you, in several threads, have implied that one way to get the abortion numbers down is to increase education and access to contraceptives.  Does knowledge about the effects change your thoughts on their use?

Why does this get you so hetted up?  Is there some part of your conscience that is struggling for release? And why keep redirecting to the difference in theologies on contraception qua contraception?  One of us is wrong.  One day we will both find out who.  Of course, the Lutheran position used to be pretty much the Catholic position before co-option by those lovely people at PP and the Eugenics movement.

[Donald_Kirchner]

No, unless you're camping you'd have to go to Two Harbors to find a hotel. That's on the way to Duluth which is then only 22 miles away. Might as well go to where you planned to end up.

I am confused here, when Charles mentioned Mankato as a side trip, I envisioned the origin being somewhere south of Duluth, but with Gooseberry Falls being North of Duluth, one would have to go out of there way to get around Duluth to get to Gooseberry Falls from the south (intentional avoidance of Duluth??).  :-)

I suggested Gooseberry Falls as a lovely sidetrip. I'm in Bemidji, hence the context.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.

No, when you dishonestly twist things publicly, the reader may call you on it.

[cssml]

Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.

The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.

No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.

Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.  Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.

If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Hummel writes:
Charles- I draw my thoughts about what you say from what you have written over the years- "When I was in Rome... When Richard John & I... When I was in Geneva... When the Cardinal said...."

I muse:
O.k., but that's not quite "incessant name-dropping." And I make no apologies for using here what experiences and blessings my career has brought me. I still contend that I have been closer to a number of Lutheran ecumenical and ecclesial events than anyone else here.

Mr. Hummel writes:
And what is so hard about saying, "Yes- I would change" or "No- I would not" with regards to a contraceptive that functions as an abortifacient.  I posed the question generally in this forum because I am genuinely interested in the answer becaus it helps me determine which paths of conversation might be most useful.

I comment:
Nothing hard at all about changing. I have done it several times, even with regard to controversial issues. You?

Mr. Hummel writes:
So answer, or don't.  But you, in several threads, have implied that one way to get the abortion numbers down is to increase education and access to contraceptives.  Does knowledge about the effects change your thoughts on their use?
I comment:
Not yet. But you can keep trying.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Why does this get you so hetted up?  Is there some part of your conscience that is struggling for release? And why keep redirecting to the difference in theologies on contraception qua contraception?  One of us is wrong.
I comment:
Puh-leeze spare us the long-distance psychoanalysis. We have different views on what might help diminish the number of abortions or pregnancies that might lead to abortions. I feel no heat. As I have said here many times, I respond to questions put directly to my comments.

Mr. Hummel writes:
....  Of course, the Lutheran position used to be pretty much the Catholic position before co-option by those lovely people at PP and the Eugenics movement.
I comment:
And the burr under your saddle seems to be the paranoia that someone other that faithful Christians have set the agenda for and positions within Lutheranism. Again, your broad brush sarcasm and cynicism is not helpful.

[Steven Tibbetts]

One thing that has changed thatnks to this thread: my image of Duluth.

zip+

[Charles_Austin]

cssml writes:
Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.
I comment:
Where have I ever said I deny the unitive and procreative purpose of human sexuality? I fully affirm that. But you (and others) seem to say that if there is sexual intimacy that by its nature cannot be procreative, it is sinful. I think that is hogwash. A couple can fully affirm both aspects of sexuality and still say that not every expression of intimacy has to fully embrace both.

cssml writes:
The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.
I comment:
See above. To repeat, every time the couple gets in the car and turns on the engine, do they have to go to Duluth? And if they don't, have they perverted the purpose of the automobile?

cssml writes:
No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.
I comment:
Then prove it to me. Can there be sexual intimacy in which procreation is neither intended nor desired? Can there be sexual intimacy where steps are taken to prevent procreation?

cssml writes:
Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.
I muse:
Actually, I doubt we really know what "all Christians" agreed upon with regard to sex before the 1930s.

cssml writes:
Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.
I comment:
Now who is making assumptions? See above. I do not say the focus should be solely on the unitive aspect of sexuality.

cssml writes:
If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.
I muse:
And what of those who so elevate the procreative aspect that to say if it is not present, sexuality is perverted and sinful?

[Donald_Kirchner]

One thing that has changed thatnks to this thread: my image of Duluth.

zip+

   Read Gore Vidal's novel, and your image will really change!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_(novel)

[Steven Tibbetts]

Will I still be in compliance with the (altered) Vision and Expectations?