Reddit mentions of Love & Responsibility: New Transla

By "not believe in birth control" I assume you mean "not believe contraception is moral". Obviously we believe that there exist pills that are referred to as "birth control" pills.

Contraception (verb) is immoral according to Natural Law philosophy, as well as Catholic Teaching.

It may seem like a hard pill to swallow (pun absolutely intended), but this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and has been (albeit less formally) for almost 2000 years. In fact, up until about a century ago, this belief was held more or less universally by all Christians.

If you're interested in why contraception is immoral, I suggest reading:

• Humanae Vitae
  
• Love and Responsibility
  
• Theology of the Body

>I've been trying to challenge my ideas, and am seeking legitimate answers. I will debate you, but I will listen.

OK. I might be late to the party, but the below, essentially, is representative of contemporary Catholic thought in sexual ethics, and it is largely based on John Paul II's Love and Responsibility.

The starting point of Catholic sexual ethics is what John Paul II termed the 'personalistic norm,' which, in short, is the imperative to love. The lawyer's response in Luke 10:27, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself," is the best scriptural encapsulation of this imperative. In Catholicism, the response to any other person can only ever be love, which is defined as giving of oneself for the good of another. It is therefore inherently meta-subjective, as it pulls one out of the prison of their own subjectivity to realize some objective good for the other. The opposite of love in Catholicism is 'use,' that is, the utilization of another person solely for the realization of any subjective purpose.

Use, therefore, is intrinsically related to what is subjective. In order for an action to transcend the subjective and therefore to cross the boundary from use to love, it must take on an objective character, rooted in some concrete referent outside of the subjective.

Sexual actions in Catholicism are therefore only legitimate if they transcend use and are rooted in some concrete referent outside of the subjective. The physical pleasure of any of the parties taking part in a sexual act cannot alone justify the act, since pleasure is inseparable from the subjective (since it is all about how the person feels interiorly—pleasure has an intrinsically subjective, and not objective, character). This is not to say that Catholicism views pleasure as bad; rather, pleasure is a tool, it is something given, that can be used either to enhance the objective good of a particular action or to contribute to its immorality; it cannot, however, be the sole justification for sexual intercourse.

What gives sexual intercourse its concrete referent is precisely its orientation toward the generation of a child. That is, the objective possibility of the particular outcome towards which sexual activity is naturally ordered—the conception of a child—is what can enable a sexual action to transcend the sphere of the purely subjective. There will obviously be pleasure in sex (and it is incumbent upon X to seek to please Y as much as is reasonably possible; otherwise Y is entirely an object of use for X). With the introduction of this objective concrete referent, pleasure becomes decidedly positive, but there will also be the possibility of objective responsibility (hence the title of John Paul II's book, Love and Responsibility): the fact that, through sex, one might become a parent and thus be responsible for some concrete referent outside of the act of sex, namely the third party, the child, gives sex an objective character. Without this objective referent, without the possibility that one will become implicated in and bear responsibility for something outside the subjective, sex does not transcend pleasure and thus does not transcend use.

Sexual activity in Catholicism is therefore only fully legitimate if it is open to the generation of a child. Thus (1) sexual activity outside of a union conducive to the rearing of a child (that is, a permanent union, i.e. a marriage) is wrong, because sex, to transcend use, must be open to life, and if there is any possibility of offspring they must be able to grow up within the context of a lasting marital union. Wrong also is (2) sexual activity in which an attempt has been made to positively exclude the possibility of conception (hence Catholicism's longstanding opposition to contraception), and (3) sexual activity in which consent is lacking, for then the subjective desire of one party is imposed on the other. Finally, (4) sexual activity between people of the same sex is also prohibited. Since such sexual activity lacks the objective referent of the possibility of a generation of a child by its intrinsic nature, Catholicism cannot endorse it.

This is not to say, obviously, that LGBT people cannot will each other's good beyond their own subjectivity. All instances of selfless love within a gay partnership—the concern for the other, the willingness to sacrifice the self for the good of the other, etc.—is laudable. As Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising in Germany and president of the German Bishops' Conference, said in 2014, "Take the case of two homosexuals who have been living together for 35 years and taking care of each other, even in the last phases of their lives... How can I say that this has no value?" Even if a relationship emerged out of non-meta-subjective sexual activity, the relationship itself can take on qualities that are objectively good and desirable, rooted in meta-subjective concern for the other, even if, from a theological perspective, no affirmation of such sexual activity is possible.

Catholicism does not object to the genuine concern for the other that emerges in an LGBT relationship, and, if we are being consistent, should actually applaud it. It simply objects to morally significant action in the absence of some concrete referent, which, in the case of sex, constitutes the openness to the generation of a child. This not being possible in an LGBT relationship, the Church must counsel abstinence.

With the case of heterosexual couples unable to have a child (i.e. the infertile and those past childbearing age), the Church does not object to sexual activity between the parties because there is no 'defect of form' and what matters is the openness to offspring. Not every sexual action has to actually result in conception, obviously; what gives sex its objective character is the married couple's openness to its taking place (because then they are willing to be implicated as morally responsible for the child, thus transcending subjectivity), and this is not grounded in the biological fact of fertility so much as it is in the will of the two parties. For this reason the Catholic Church requires anybody getting married in a Catholic ceremony to publicly declare their openness to having children and considers marriages contracted without this openness to be illegitimate and subject to annulment.

Final note: though, again, no endorsement of sexual activity outside of the context of heterosexual marriage is possible from a Catholic perspective, I have long thought that the general tone the Church has taken towards LGBT people has left so much to be desired (and that we should really recognize that civil marriage is quite distinct from Catholic sacramental marriage, and that some differences between the former and the latter are not really cause for excess concern). It must be understood that the above reflections are entirely theoretical and that facts on the ground must inform the Church's practical response. The love that exists between LGBT people is real and must be recognized as such by the Church; and I will not begrudge anybody their desire to be with the one they love. The Church's objections lie in the realm of sexual activity alone, and Catholics must remember that. It must also remember Jesus' proscription against judging, as well as Cardinal Ratzinger's 1986 reflections—

>It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

>The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

and the Catechism's call—

>They [homosexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Respect. Compassion. Sensitivity. And I would add also: compassion and understanding. Our philosophical justifications for viewing sexual activity only as legitimate in the presence of an objective concrete referent (the possibility of the generation of a child and willingness to be responsible for said child) are, as has been made abundantly clear here, very theoretical. I do not think that we can practically expect all persons to recognize this theoretical logic and, still less, to be able to follow it. Gay people, gay Catholics, will fall in love powerfully and will find it difficult not to have sex. Though doctrinally our position is absolute, we must adopt a posture of compassion and sensitivity towards such persons, not one of judgment.

Get the new translation!