As If We Don't Talk About The Kardashians Enough

In paragraph 9, the Pope says,
 "It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife    generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself." 
This basically discusses the sanctity of marriage and how a marriage should basically consist of self-sacrifice, and should be an enriching experience for both partners. The Pope reiterates how important it is to give and receive in a marriage. The Pope's position on how a marriage should be, is confirmed and backlashed against in our society at the same time. The much discussed Kardashian-Humphries marriage, or lack there of, displays how public figures backlash against what the standard of marriage is set by the Pope. However, our society seems to agree with the Pope's standpoint of the selflessness of marriage by all the negative feedback given through the media. I think it's very interesting to watch Kim Kardashian's marriage on television because they contradict what the Pope says the key components of marriage are, and I feel wrong watching it. This is weird for me because I have not been raised very religiously, and somehow I still inherently have the same position as the Pope of what a marriage should be composed of. This causes me to think that the Pope's position is either influenced by what the general public thinks in a way, or if even unreligious people are somewhat swayed by the Pope and his moral grounds in some way. 

Fidelity in Marriage with Susan Bordo theory

In Paragraph 9, Pope Paul VI talks about marriage and especially mentions the idea that men and women must stay faithful to each other. The part containing to this issue is below:

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.

Basically, it means men and women must stay faithful, as in not to have sex with another partner. This also addresses the issue of the high divorce rate in America.

What the Pope would wish for every marriage in America is complete and absolute dedication of both partners to each other. If this amazing yet unrealistic goal was to be achievable, the social impact would be immense. Children would no longer have to be transported from house to house and custody battles would not exist. Families would not be split due to one partner moving out or leaving the family. Finances would be a lot simpler and children would not be put in the middle of a “love war” in which each mom or dad would want to win over the complete love of the child. The children of the family would have both a male and female role model to look up to for development. Within a relationship of the two parents, both would have faith in the other that they are the “one and only” for the other person. The psychological strain of every member of the family would be lessened and many feelings spared. The couple would view themselves as an entity, which would create a strong bond between the two. On the downside, it would mean that two people who should not be together (abusive relationship, fighting, financially unstable) would have to work out their differences in order to have a peaceful environment. However, on the whole I believe this change would benefit the great majority of the population. Even in the article, the Pope admits that having one partner is difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. He sees this as an ideal that we should all work towards and what a “perfect world” would look like.

However, these actions (let us call them our conscious politics and commitments if we were to adopt this social norm into our culture) would, according to Bordo, be undermined by our unconscious wishes (sexual desire for others than the original partner). However, although those new goals may be undermined and challenged by our desires, it does not necessarily mean they need to be broken. A person always chooses to commit adultery; it does not happen explicitly from our unconscious desires. At some point, it must be a choice each person makes before the action. Bordo's claim may be correct in stating that our unconscious body wishes for certain things (almost like the id of freud), however I think her theory is not complete in that these is always the "logical" sense of a person who, when forced to make a decision, reflects back on their goals and balances the unconscious wishes with the norm they are trying to keep (like the ego). Based on their own conscious, those decisions are made. Although our bodies may innately sway us to one side, I do believe it is our choice to make the final action.

Does contraception change you?

“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

In Pope John Paul’s quote under Consequences of Artificial Methods paragraph 17, it can be read that irresponsible men use contraception and through this praxis lower their standards as well as respect for women. This in turn can ruin relationships, marriages and families. Sex is no longer something that is monogamous between two partners but practiced irresponsibly with many. This quote ultimately insinuates that men who use contraception are more inclined to infidelity. Although some would say that this is true, it is a bit extreme to say that all men who use contraception are going to cheat on their wives and become irreverent of women. On that same note even those who consider themselves religious find a way to overcome this and use contraception. Just as Susan Bordo said we are docile bodies in that we willingly take part in something such as contraception even though it may go against some of our beliefs.

As far as the difference in the way men act when using contraception rather than without I agree with the Pope on this one. Just as we mentioned in class about women and how they are different on the pill, men change too. Without the fear of reproduction the idea of having multiple partners seems to be more appealing since there is less risk involved. Even women are having more sex out of wedlock with contraception, making it a less sacred act. Think of it from Leppert’s claim that women look at themselves being looked at while men do the looking. Through contraception this can be practiced even more because women will spend more time being concerned about how they are perceived in hopes that they can take part in carefree sexual activity now that conception is not likely. Granted the Pope makes valid points about the negative effects that can and have come with contraception I still believe that contraception can and should be used if the two people involved either do not want or are not ready for a child.

Faithfulness to God's design, paragraph 13

Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.

To me this entire paragraph means that in order to be intimate, both husband and wife have to be accepting of it and want it at that point in time because sex should only happen with the intentions of making a kid. This goes hand in hand with disagreeing with any form of birth control since it is obviously meant to prevent birth. Not all birth control is meant to prevent birth though. Some women use the pill to regulate their time of the month because of how painful cramps may be or any other thing that could happen. Condoms are also used to prevent transmission of any STD's, which will ultimately protect a child from also getting the disease. Although the church believes that you should only be having sex to have children, there is still some reason behind always using birth control.

Later on in the paragraph the pope also expects the man to know when the woman does not want to be intimate solely by reading it on their face. For the record, men will never be able to read women because they don't even know what they want sometimes.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods para. 14

In paragraph 14 of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI claims that all forms of birth control are a, "direct interruption of the generative process". In other words, he is saying that whether you are on the patch, taking the pill, using condoms, or otherwise preventing the natural path of pregnancy, your actions are to be condemned. The Pope then adds, “above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children”. He uses this word, “lawful” as a sort of power word in an attempt to exhibit his power and authority. I think it is interesting paying particular attention on the language when reading through the few paragraphs regarding abortion. He tends to use a lot of these power words, such as, “condemn”, “judged unworthy of man”, “magisterium of the Church”, “consequently”, “greater evil”, “intrinsically wrong”. Everything is overdramatized and seems to be punishable by death by the way he speaks. Regarding abortion he continues to “condemn” birth control by saying that, “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation--whether as an end or means”. The way he makes his statements are used in such a way that readers can not even question what is said. There is no leeway and there is no thinking about what you really think is right or wrong. A few examples of this are when The Pope says, “Neither is it valid to argue...”, “Equally to be condemned...”, “Similarly excluded...”. These sentence starters are used very carefully in order to persuade and coerce readers that what is said, is what is right.

In terms of abortion, I am 100% pro-choice. I believe that no one has the right to tell me what I can and can not do with my body. In my opinion, The Pope is extremely influential and powerful to his followers. He does a great job writing and speaking in just a way that people believe in what he is saying. Although I commend him for his power over these people, I hope that no matter what religion or cultural group you belong to, you always have a mind of your own. I believe this because there can be serious consequences to situations where people begin to play “follow the leader” when they end up not even know why they are following them in the first place. I mean, we have all heard about the Salem witch trials, and the good ol’ Guillotine! Things did not work out so well for them when one person began to believe one thing after another, and things got out of control. Not that I think The Church has plans to go out killing people (again) who are wronging The Church or anything, but having so many people mindlessly follow one person can be very dangerous. If The Pope says that abortion is to be condemned, then I guess he is right, and that is that. Oh wait...why is that that? Hm...docile bodies much? It is easy to fall into this when you no longer have to worry about thinking for yourself because you have a higher power who obviously knows more than you, telling you what is right and what is wrong. Easy life right? Well I think it is good no matter where you live, or what social constructions you have grown to have and create, you should always be allowed and able to think for yourself.

(Unlawful?) Birth Control Methods

In Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, paragraph 14 titled, Unlawful Birth Control Methods states, "...We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)" He said that no artificial method and under no circumstances is birth control allowed. He believed that marriage and sexual intercourse are for procreation purposes only, and whatever uses and methods of contraception that are used are strictly prohibited and looked down upon by the Church. If any type of birth control was used, it was considered a sin because it is interfering with the way of God's plan.

While Pope Paul VI believed in a 'fixed and unchanging human nature,' history goes to show that human nature is forever changing and will continue to change, shaping and reshaping itself. In modern day, not everyone believes in the Catholic Church; some people don't believe in religion at all. Obviously, there are lots of people in the world who don't believe in the idea of "God's ultimate plan for human life." These individuals don't deserve to be ridiculed, frowned upon, and to be called sinners by the Catholic Church. It's just not fair that the so-called "non-believers" turn into sinners. Just because Catholicism was one of the first religions, doesn't mean that everyone should follow in its teachings and beliefs. Freedom of religion is a right that everyone has (in America, anyway) and everyone should be treated equally regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

The Pope socially constructed this to be something evil and since he is so influential to many, it is hard to socially reconstruct the idea of birth control. To prove that human nature is ever changing, now, birth control has gained a lot of popularity and lots of people are engaging in safer sex. Back in the late 1800s- early 1900s, families would have many children and some would die because the parents did not have enough resources to provide them with a healthy life. This, in my opinion, is worse than using contraceptives to prevent having these kids in the first place. Being a responsible parent is knowing whether or not you have the resources to provide for your future children, if not then you shouldn't be having kids at all. But under Catholic "law", any method of birth control was illegal, so if God granted you with a child, it was there to stay. Pope Paul IV also stated that marriage and sexual intercourse were for procreation purposes only. Back then, people got married for economic or social status reasons. Now, marriage is (or should be) about love. Sexual intercourse isn't necessarily only for baby making, it should be a way of expressing that love. Marriage shouldn't and isn't all about having kids either. There are plenty of people who get married and don't want kids.

History and culture are socially constructed by the people that live in that time. It is ever changing and will continue to change without a doubt. The norm and all things deemed "ok" by society now are very different than the norm more than a century ago, in Pope Paul VI's time.

Responsible Parenthood and it's influence upon us

"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time." Pope Paul VI states this in paragraph 26 of Humanae Vitae to emphasize that when it comes to parenthood, there must be a stability to the conditions and logic of a parent(s). Analyzing this excerpt from the article, it would be seen to mean that responsible parenthood means parents who meets the "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions," which means that the parents are healthy through body and mind, is stable in wealth and is able to communicate with others effectively. Parents who tends to be the responsible kind are also the ones that wants to have more than one children as well.

I agree with the pope that in order for a parent to be viewed as responsible, he/she must meet all of the conditions he listed. Parents who abuse their children are not responsible through the physical and psychological conditions because that damages the child's mentality growing up and sometimes causes them to lead a very tragic life. It also impacts not just the child, but also the ones around the child. If a parent is not meeting the economic conditions, then the child will not have enough resources to grow up in a healthy environment and will not be able to cherish his/her youth as much as one with a wealthy parent(s). Social conditions must also be met or the child will not be able to learn how to communicate with other and cope to the society. The consequences are very simple; if a parent(s) is not responsible, he/she/they lack the conditions needed for the growth of a child and so they are not considered responsible parents.

In connecting this concept to our class, we have been talking about how culture and background creates identity. This relates through the idea that if a parent is not responsible, then the culture and background of the child will not lead to a successful future since it will be of bad influence and irresponsible parenthood. Clarifying the concept more, it is through our parents good responsible parenthood which has influenced us to be where we are today and that is college.

Same Sex Marriage (May have been done a hundred times already)

Paragraph 8 in the section “God’s Loving Design”

While the entire paragraph is relevant to Cultural Studies, there is one statement in particular which is extremely controversial and important in culture currently.

“…husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.”

The section simply states that marriage should remain between a man and a woman and the argument laid forth is that it is the “natural” way of the world; God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman for that is the only way to procreate.

There are many flaws within the statement and the paragraph as a whole. Both the paragraph and the overall argument are based in the idea that God and Jesus are real and that God’s will is “natural law.” The main conflict between the argument and Cultural Studies is that we agree with the Gang of Four in that “We take the idea that there's no such thing as a 'natural fact' seriously.” Thus, we must view God, Christianity, Atheism, and all other religions as social constructs rather than any of them being “natural” or correct.

Once we determine that God’s will cannot be “natural” fact we must consider the ramifications of denying same-sex or non-traditional sex marriage. The chief issue that arises in American culture is that marriage is that our country is founded on a separation of church and state; however, same sex marriage is illegal in most states within America, despite the fact that legal marriage has nothing to do with Church. While America theoretically has separation of church and state, most of our government has always been Christian and every president we have ever had was a Christian; this religious “control” of government has created a culture which, as a whole, tends to be more homophobic (or at least less accepting of same-sex marriage.) This social construct has caused a blatant infringement on the rights of Americans laid out in the constitution, more specifically in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

While the amendment states that Americans have freedom of religion, they should also have a freedom from religion. There is an element of hypocrisy in that a Christian’s or Muslim’s or Jew’s rights are not infringed upon if two homosexuals get married, homosexual’s rights can be infringed by religious texts. While historically America has been run by white Christian males, it has become time to move past prejudice based in millennia of discrimination.

Responsible Parenthood

In paragraph 24 it is stated; “With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)”What I believe this paragraph is trying to say is that the church views responsible parenthood as those people who acknowledged that at every point the child with in them has rights and should be protected. And therefore that responsible parenthood is those who do not use birth control or anything of the like.

This statement of course brings up again the question of when is the life inside of you considered to have its own rights and at what point are those rights still yours. In society today many people who use a form of birth control are viewed as being responsible. Responsible in the fact that they are not bring another life into this world that they are not ready to or maybe want to provide for at the moment. Then the next part of it is after the child is conceived what the responsible thing to do is, and for this one I do not have an answer; nor does I think anyone else, I believe because it all comes down the beliefs and position of the person(s) who are pregnant at the time; at least for the most part that is how it is. The issue brought up is about responsible parenthood, but the ideas brought forth are not necessarily the only ways in society that people view as being a responsible parent, though often times it is thought more so as being a responsible adult not parent.

Natural Law has never changed apparently, so then the Chuch has never changed...apparently.

In paragraph 16, titled "Recourse to Infertile Periods", the last paragraph contains," Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious." This statement along with the rest of the paragraph is explaining that for married couples who still want to get down but don't want to have children there is one option. This option is to only have sex while the women is on her period, and he goes on to explain that god build in this function which "does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." This means that it is only ok to have sex without intention of procreation, when it is impossible to get pregnant from the function of a women's body, while married of course. The pope later makes this point explaining these two cases that don't seem very different, but in the eyes of god one is absolutely horrible. The pope says that married couples who use birth control during the fertile period or "obstruct the natural development of the generative process" are wrong while if pregnancy is impossible for a natural reason then it is all right. This is a very good example of how religion can be constructed and, now more than ever, has been trying to entangle itself with the modern world. The pope uses a natural fact about human physiology and construct it into a religious belief, using a women's period as a plan from god for people who don't want to have kids. To me this seems right in line with how religion is constructed to, in its own mind, take control of nature and claim it as its own. This reminds me to when the church used to use skin color as a sign of a curse from god to justify slavery.