2006-05-05
Hej
Jag en fråga till Dig utifrån att Du representerar katolska kyrkans syn bla på en hel del moralfrågor i Fråga Prästen. Jag tänker närmast på Ditt svar nedan.
Vore tacksam om Du kunde vidareutveckla vad Du menar med att användandet av preventivmedel skulle "rubba skapelseordningen" Preventivmedel 2
Jag menar vad/vilka källor stödjer Du Dig på för detta påstående? Din jämförelse mellan användandet av preventivmedel och ett ätstörningsbeteende vore jag också tacksam om Du ville kommentera närmare då jag har svårt att se parallellen.
Med vänliga hälsningar
Anette
Hej Anette
Tack för dina synpunkter. Jag bygger mitt svar om att ” användandet av preventivmedel skulle "rubba skapelseordningen" nedan på denna text från FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO av Johannes Paulus II som i sin tur baserar sig på Andra Vatikanconciliet (Gaudium et Spes) och Humanae vitae av Paulus VI.
Jag markerar med fetstil nedan
Min formulering ”skapelseordningen” är ett annat sätt att säga ” these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man” som du ser nedan.
Min formulering ”rubba” (skapelseordningen) är ett annat sätt att säga ” the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative”.
Jämförelsen med förtäring av mat bygger jag på likheten som finns mellan bandet mellan två aspekter som ätandet har: det naturliga behovet (att inta näring) och njutningen. I samlaget finns också två aspekter som är liknande: behovet av sexuell förening för att den mänskligheten skall fortleva (fortplantningsbehovet) och njutningen.
Jag avsedde inte att syfta på ätstörningar när jag skrev detta. Jag tänkte på ett bruk som förekom på överklassens festmåltider i sexton- och sjuttonhundratalets Sverige. Jag har ändrat den texten nu så att ingen skall tro att jag menar bullemi/ anorexi.
In an Integral Vision of the Human Person and of His or Her Vocation
32. In the context of a culture which seriously distorts or entirely misinterprets the true meaning of human sexuality, because it separates it from its essential reference to the person, the Church more urgently feels how irreplaceable is her mission of presenting sexuality as a value and task of the whole person, created male and female in the image of God.
In this perspective the Second Vatican Council clearly affirmed that "when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced."(Gaudium et Spes 51)
It is precisely by moving from "an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation,"(Humanae vitae 7) that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church "is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."( Humanae vitae 12) And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."( Humanae vitae 14)
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.( Humanae vitae 13)