Catholic writer Kyle Cupp writes about the difficulties of the anti-contraception argument:
Opponents of contraception face seemingly insurmountable obstacles, not the least of which is their position’s antagonism toward today’s common sense view of sexual morality. Opposition toward contraception is not common; acceptance of it as a personal and social good is. A few voices cry out in the wilderness, but they are just that: a few, and, by today’s standards, uncivilized. {…}
Opponents of contraception cannot easily dismiss its judgments or wave them away as products of a perverse age. The proposition that today’s common sense view of sexual morality is perverse requires careful demonstration. Noting the correlation between widespread use of contraceptives with other social ills does not suffice. Even if one could prove a causal relationship between common acceptance of contraception and, say, the rise of cohabitation, one would still have to show that this growing acceptance of cohabitation is also a sign of corruption.
There is something to be said for not bending with the times. Manytimes, the people telling you how you need to bend with the times… well, don’t have your best interest at heart. They are not interested in your church’s survival so much as that you get out of their way.
Having said that, a church’s perishoners do need clues on how to reconcile their membership in the church with the modern world. And on this, the church has failed. Most have, but few so spectacularly on this particular issue.
Now, most churches have a prohibition on premarital sex. But the reconciliation, such as it is, is to say “Well, we can’t stop you from doing it, but don’t talk about doing it, and say with us that you shouldn’t do it.” The RCC takes it a step further, by essentially saying “We can’t stop you from doing it, but we will double up on the sinfulness of it by not allowing you to take comparatively common-sense measures to protect yourself from adverse consequences.
Most of the time, the result of this is that Catholics are among the most talkative people about their sexual sins than any other group I know. And they use contraception. And they talk about that, too.
What’s missing from all of this is exactly what the Church (and most churches) do want you to do. The focus on don’t makes sense in light of certain things, but it leaves certain logistical questions unanswered. Namely, if people are supposed to wait until marriage, and they’re not marrying until they’re 30, how realistic is this expectation?
The only church I have ever seen really tackle this problem is the LDS Church, and they have planted a flag on not waiting until you’re 30. Not just by saying “Don’t wait until you’re 30” but also by actively trying to hook their youngsters up. The basic Mormon timeline, as best as I can tell, is that boys go to K-12, go on a mission for two years, then they’re 20 and the girls graduating high school are 18 and… there you go. It’s not arranged marriages and they want you to find the right person, but the order of the day is “get moving.”
If churches really want less premarital sex, and to get rid of the 20’s sex culture, they they need to work harder to prevent it from happening. Rather than wagging their finger over the fact that it is happening. Don’t tell me that they can’t do this because the Church doesn’t want to mettle.
Rather, I think they don’t want to do it because it’s politically difficult. Even among conservatives in the US, marrying in your early twenties is rather strongly discouraged for logistical reasons. Particularly among the middle class and upper middies whose money they often need and who don’t want the church telling them they need to marry that kid with the ear-ring that their daughter just swears she’s in love with. In an odd way, it’s here they’ve chosen to bend. Not against church doctrine, but against the inevitable results of failing to do so – the results running against church doctrine. Maybe that’s a crucial distinction, but it does come across as a somewhat disingenuous one.
Now, doing so would probably be a losing battle. The Mormons themselves seem to be losing their grip, with fewer boys going on missions and the prescribed timeline being disrupted. But the Mormons have advantages (an insular entertainment culture, 1.3 states they dominate, and so on). But it’s no less crazy than asking kids to wait for sex until they’re 30.
Of course, on the contraception discussion, this only tackles one part. Once married, the Church’s path is clear. Keep having kids. Clear, but ignored. But at least they went down swinging.
About the Author
15 Responses to Post #3054
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
Are you giving up post titles for lent?
Outstanding post.
It’s old news, of course, but watch how the worm turns. Contraception was the original “privacy” right in Griswold, but now its advocates openly demand that non-conformists justify themselves and force them to surrender their tax dollars to subsidize the contraception of others.
fewer boys going on missions
Do you have quality stats on LDS youth retention rates? I’ve often thought that, what with the aggressive mission work and the larger families, we should all have been Mormon by now.
Are you giving up post titles for lent?
Apparently, I’m giving up remembering post titles.
Do you have quality stats on LDS youth retention rates? I’ve often thought that, what with the aggressive mission work and the larger families, we should all have been Mormon by now.
I’ve read that the retention rates are exceptionally low outside the US. I can’t seem to find numbers in the US. When they talk about the LDS being the “fastest growing church”, they’re usually talking about international numbers, which tend to be the most faulty.
The Mormons themselves seem to be losing their grip, with fewer boys going on missions. . .
This is due to the fact they’ve upped the standards on who can go. They’re way more strict than when I went years ago.
Really? Why?
^^^^ Is that question for me? ^^^^^
Yeah. My understanding is that missionaries are expected to pay for it themselves (well, their families), so why not send as many as possible? Were miscreants creating trouble?
There are worthiness that one needs to meet in order to serve a mission for the LDS Church. Basically you have to meet all the worthiness standards of the church in order to serve. If you’ve engaged in what are considered more serious sin (e.g., premarital sex) or have a criminal record, you’re not allowed to go. Period.
When I served (I left in 1995) there was more leeway about this and it was considered that if someone had problems in their life a mission was a good way to help straighten them out and help them repent. That thinking won’t fly any more.
There are also mental and physical health standards missionaries have to meet as well that weren’t around when I went. If you’ve got serious health issues or are obese, you’re out of luck as well. If you can correct the weight or health issues you can go but otherwise you’re out of luck.
I can’t say exactly why they came up with the new set of rules but I’m all for them. Unless you’ve served mission, people have no idea just how much work it actually is. If you’ve got issues you need to resolve, a mission isn’t the place to be. There’s too much WORK (12+ hour days most of the time) to do that it will crush people who aren’t mentally, physically, and spirituality prepared for it.
Abel Keogh: If you … are obese, you’re out of luck as well.
Is that for health reasons, or because it puts a poor face on the faith?
@ScarletKnight Health reasons. Most missions you spend a lot of time walking or biking. You need to be somewhat physically fit to serve.
Isn’t going on a foreign mission a hard and fast requirement for a man to remain a member in good standing in the LDS? I guess if you want to purge your rolls of fat people . . .
Actually, I didn’t know that LDS missionaries had to pay their own way or otherwise raise their own support. I know that single men don’t require a lot of maintenance, but that still seems to put a mission out of the reach of poor people.
Isn’t going on a foreign mission a hard and fast requirement for a man to remain a member in good standing in the LDS? I guess if you want to purge your rolls of fat people . . .
I assume that Abel will be able to elaborate, but this isn’t true. A good portion of my coworkers in Deseret never went on missions (particularly the fat ones, now that I think on it). I think that going on a mission confers full membership faster (or automatically, barring scandal), but there are other mechanisms.
Isn’t going on a foreign mission a hard and fast requirement for a man to remain a member in good standing in the LDS?
Missionary service, foreign or domestic, isn’t required to be a member in good standing. The current prophet of the church, Thomas Monson, never served a mission.
I think that going on a mission confers full membership faster (or automatically, barring scandal), but there are other mechanisms.
If by “full membership” you mean a temple recommend, then yes. But if one doesn’t serve a mission they usually get one when they’re in their mid to late 20s so long as they’re not breaking any major rules.
Actually, I didn’t know that LDS missionaries had to pay their own way or otherwise raise their own support. I know that single men don’t require a lot of maintenance, but that still seems to put a mission out of the reach of poor people.
Anyone who wants to serve a mission and is following the rules can do so, regardless of their financial circumstances. If someone can’t afford to go, usually members of the local congregation he attends will step up and help pay for it. If not, lot of members contribute to a general missionary fund that the church redistributes around the world to help pay for missions of those who want to go but can’t afford it. No one is ever been denied serving a mission because they couldn’t afford it.
In addition, serving a mission isn’t very expensive. Missionaries pay a flat monthly rate which is then redistributed according to regional costs of living. I believe the flat rate is $400 (I think) a month which helps to cover food, lodging, transportation, and other mission related expenses. (It was $350 a month when I went.)