On the Gospel (First Sunday of Lent, C)

In the heat of the President Bill Clinton and Miss Monica Lewinsky affair, the head of a women's support group spoke on CNN. This is what she said, in essence: "Monica Lewinsky has done nothing wrong. In the world of corporate establishments and in the White House bureaucracy, women who want to advance must use everything at their disposal: power, connections and sex. If that is what she has done, we see absolutely nothing wrong with that." The name of the game is: use what you have to get what you want. I am sure you have heard that before. Many people indeed take it as their philosophy of life. In our Gospel reading today, however, Jesus shows us that the principle of using whatever you have to get whatever you want is not always right. In fact, when that principle is applied without putting God first, it becomes a philosophy of the world, the devil's own philosophy, a philosophy that should be rejected even as Jesus did.
Our Gospel today is on the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. Three temptations are recounted: to change stone into bread, to fall down and worship the devil, and to jump down from the pinnacle of the Temple. In each of these three temptations what the devil is saying to Jesus is, "Come on, use what you have to get what you want." And in each case Jesus overcomes the temptation by replying, "No, we can only use godly means to satisfy our God-given needs or to pursue our goals in life."
In the first temptation, Jesus had fasted for forty days in the wilderness and at the end of it he was very hungry. The devil puts an idea into his head: "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread" (Luke 4:3). Notice that the first thing the devil does is sow a doubt in his mind: "if you are the Son of God." "Are you really sure God is with you?" The same thing happened in the garden of Eden. The first thing the Tempter said to Eve was, "Did God really say you should not eat of any fruit of the garden" (Genesis 3:1). Temptation always begins with a doubting thought. Did God really say this or is it one of those Sunday school fairy tales? Jesus overcame the temptations by refusing to entertain such doubts and by standing on the word of God.
Note, secondly, that people are tempted only with what they need or want. After his fasting Jesus needed to eat. So the devil tempted him with food. It is not a sin for Jesus to eat after fasting. The sin may lie in how the food is obtained. Should he follow the normal way of obtaining bread or should he take the shortcut suggested by the devil to obtain instant bread? Jesus refuses to take the devil's shortcut. The means we employ to satisfy our needs must be in accordance with the word of God. Feeding on God's word is ultimately more important than feeding on bread. "It is written, 'One does not live by bread alone'" (verse 4).
In the second temptation the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and promises to give him authority over them if only Jesus would worship him. Remember that Jesus was about to begin his public life and was looking for a way to get the whole world to know him and accept his message. Again the devil tempts him to use what he has (his heart, his soul) to get what he wants (the loyalty of the whole world). Again Jesus says no. The end does not justify the means. "It is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him'" (verse 8).
In the third temptation the devil asks Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple as a way to prove that he was the Son of God. Remember that the people were asking Jesus for a sign to prove that he was the Messiah. Jesus wanted to convince them that he was the one. But how do you do it! The devil suggested this sensational sky jump without a parachute. Again, use what you have to get what you want. Use your supernatural power to get the people to recognize you and believe in you as the Son of God, the Messiah. And again Jesus says no. The God of Jesus Christ is not a God of the sensational but a God who works through the ordinary, everyday things of life. "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" (verse 12).
So you see, unlike those friends of Monica who believe you can trade off everything you have to obtain what you want, Jesus shows us that we should never trade off our faith in God or our moral principles to obtain anything in this world, because faithfulness to God is more precious than anything in this world.

On the Epistles (first Sunday of Lent, C)

Nigeria is one of the African countries I so much love talking about. This is because, I pent six (6) years of my formative period there, studying in the major regions, North, West and in the East. A recent poll conducted for the BBC finds that Nigerians are the most religious people in the world. Nigerians receive this news with mixed feelings. “Yes, we are the most religious people in the world when it comes to church attendance, prayer and identifying ourselves as believers,” they say, “but why does our religiosity not translate itself into right conduct and fair business practice.” Nigeria, as you know, is said to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Is true religion only a matter of the heart and of the lips? This is the question that comes to mind as we hear Paul’s words to the Romans in today’s second reading: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Is true Christianity, then, simply a matter of believing in the heart and confessing with the lips? Are the hands and feet not involved? Does it matter how we lead our lives so long as we believe in our heart and confess with our lips? What is Paul teaching us here?
To rightly understand what Paul is saying and what this means in our daily lives we need to see it in the context of the early Christians in Rome. The Roman church was a severely persecuted church. Christians were persecuted not for what they said and did but for what they refused to say and do. You see, starting from the time of Julius Caesar, the Roman Emperor had adopted a divine status. At his death the emperor was deified and proclaimed to be a god, while his living successor was declared to be the son of a god (divi filius). Sacrifices and incense were offered in public worship to the emperor gods. They were invoked and addressed as “lord” (dominus).
But the early Christians believed that the only person to have walked this earth who deserved to be addressed and worshipped as God is none other than Jesus Christ. They, therefore, transferred to Jesus the title and the homage that emperor worshippers has conferred on the emperor. They called Jesus the true Son of God and addressed him as Lord while refusing to recognize the divine status of the emperors, even under threat of death. Of course some of them, out of fear of death, would deny their Christian faith and confess Caesar to be the Lord. Paul is not happy with that. In today’s reading he encourages them to remain strong in their faith in the Resurrected One and to confess him as Lord even if that would cost them their lives, for that is the way to attain salvation.
“For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved” (10:10). By secretly believing in Jesus in the privacy of their hearts, Christians are justified. This is not enough, however. Ultimate and final salvation comes only when one has the courage on one’s conviction to openly confess Christ as Lord with one’s lips. Against this background we can see that Paul is not telling them that believing in Christ in the heart alone is all that saves the Christian. Far from that, he is encouraging them to translate their faith into concrete and public action, even if that action is only to declare publicly that Jesus is the Lord. For that was the challenge of the faith in those days
What is the challenge of the faith in our own day? The tendency to regard the Christian faith as a private matter is still a concern for us today. In many places it is not politically correct to identify ourselves as Christians either as individuals or as communities. France has banned the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in schools. The United States frowns at the public display of Christian symbols on government property, like the Ten Commandments monument in a Kentucky courthouse. In places like Nigeria where public display of religion is allowed, people display it but fail to follow through with the implication of faith in their day to day lives. Paul urges us today to think the thought (in out hearts), to talk the talk (with our lips) and to walk the walk ( in our actions).

ASH WEDNESDAY

A story has it that Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, once captured a prince and his family. When they were brought before him, Cyrus asked the captured prince, “What will you give me if I release you?”
“The half of my wealth,” was his reply.
“And if I release your children?”
“Everything I possess.”
“And if I release your wife?”
“Your Majesty, I will give myself.”
Cyrus was so moved by his devotion that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, “Wasn’t Cyrus a handsome man!” With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, “I didn’t notice. I could only keep my eyes on you—the one who was willing to give himself for me.” Lent is here again beginning today with the ‘Ash Wednesday’ celebration, and it is the time for us to remember Jesus, the one who was willing to give his life for us and the manner in which he did, in fact, give his life for us. The Lord makes an invitation to us in every urgent term. ‘Come back to me with your whole heart, fasting, weeping and mourning.’’ In our days it seems that weeping and mourning are easier, for we just are passive when they occur. Fasting is sacrificing that one would prefer in order to help those in need. But indeed, its power is in its ability to help us “come back to the Lord” like the call in the first reading. Through fasting, we are able to say to things, “you cannot possess me; my happiness does not depend on you.” And while we engage in this, we are encouraged in the Gospel to do all in humility. The most important thing in this season apart from the three acts outlined by the church (fasting, Prayer and alms giving), we can also make much effort to fast from SIN. The call from God is still on “Come to me”, and he says to us, “though your sins be as scarlet, I shall make them white as the snow”. May God grant us a grace-filled Lenten Season.

PROPHECY OR POPULARITY

One of the first indigenous bishops in Ghana (whose name I would not want to mention) returned to his native town for a reception soon after he was made bishop. His townspeople, most of whom had only a faint idea of what the Christian faith or the office of bishop stands for, came together to give him a big reception. In the welcome speech, the people expressed how happy they were that one of their own sons had risen to the exalted position of those who had direct access to God. They promised him they would all embrace Christianity if he, as bishop, would use the power of his office to suppress one of the Ten Commandments for them. Before they could say which of the Commandments they had in mind, the young bishop shocked them by telling them that the Ten Commandments are of divine and not human making, and so are unchangeable. The celebratory mood turned into disappointment and the bishop had to make a hasty departure from his own people. Jesus, in today's gospel, went through a very similar experience.

Like the bishop, Jesus was coming home soon after his baptism where the Holy Spirit descended on him and he was publicly declared to be the Son of God. Like the bishop, Jesus’ townspeople received him at first with amazement and praise: “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’” (Luke 4:22). Like the bishop, Jesus was expected to use his powers and do some special favour for his own people. After all, they were his own people. And again like the bishop, when Jesus told them the truth that God has no favourites but relates to all humankind by the same standards, they turned against him in disappointment and ran him out of town.

Jesus anticipated the people's disappointment with him because he understood himself to be engaged in the prophetic ministry. In biblical terms, a prophet is not simply someone who foretells the future. A prophet, essentially, is someone who speaks for God, God’s own spokesperson. The prophet’s signature tune is, “Thus says the Lord....” The prophet focuses primarily on clearly expressing the word of God. Whether this word is happily received by the people or not is not the prophet’s primary concern. Prophets tell the bitter truth and this is what gets them into trouble. What is the truth that Jesus is telling his townspeople in today's gospel that gets him into trouble?

Jesus is telling his townspeople of Nazareth the truth of the universality of God's grace. The people of Nazareth, like most of the “chosen” people of God in Jesus' time, had come to believe in a God made in their own image and likeness. They believed in an either-or God -- “if God is for us, then he must be against them.” They believed in a God whose beneficence was limited to the “chosen” people. Jesus tells them that such a God does not exist. The true God is equally available to all humanity -- so long as they approach God with faith and trust. To illustrate his points Jesus cites the cases of the prophets Elijah and Elisha who performed great miracles for people who were outside the confines of the “chosen” people. The people were in error and Jesus tried to give them the truth:

The truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-27).

The people could not accept the truth because it went against their long-established beliefs in their own superiority, which made them feel good about themselves.

The people of God have always had two kinds of teachers. There are the prophetic teachers who seek above all to please God; who speak the truth of God even when this would cost them their popularity and the people's patronage. And then there are the popularist teachers who seek above all to please the people, to tell them what they would love to hear and confirm them in their prejudices. Scripture warns us that "the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires" (2 Timothy 4:3).

The greatest of all virtues is universal and unconditional love (2nd reading). And the beginning of this agape love is the recognition that there is only one chosen people of God, only one chosen race: the human race.

HOME WORK ON LOVE (Second reading of the fourth Sunday of the year)

The passage we have today in the 2^nd reading, 1 Corinthians 13, is one of the best texts on love that you can find in the Bible. If you want to know what true love is, read that chapter over and over again. Many times in church we speak about the importance of love. In fact, we cannot speak too much about love because in the Christian life, love seems to be everything. Even God, we are told, is love. Today, however, I would not like us to listen to another speech on love. I would rather like to propose to you some practical exercises on love.

A Checklist on Love

How much of a loving person are you? An exercise based on this reading helps us to find that out easily. The text, taken from the New International Bible, version reads:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Now let us read the passage again putting “JESUS” and “HE” wherever we find “LOVE” and “IT.” You can see that it read smoothly. You can still agree with every line of the passage. Next read the passage again, this time substituting your name, “NN”, and the pronoun “I”. Do you still agree with every line in the passage? How do you score yourself on a scale of 1 to 10? That shows how loving a person you are.

A Homework on Love
(Adapted From A Second Helping of Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen, 46-48.)

An adult education teacher once gave his class an assignment to go to someone they love before the following week's class and tell them that they loved them. They would then give their report at the next class. It had to be someone to whom they had never said those words before, or at least not for a very long time. At the next class, one man stood up and recounted his story to the class. "I was quite angry with you last week when you gave us this assignment. I felt like, who were you to tell us to do something so personal? But as I was driving home, my conscience started talking to me. It was telling me that I knew exactly who I needed to say “I love you” to.

Five years ago, my father and I had a terrible argument which we have never resolved. We have avoided seeing each other unless it was absolutely necessary and even then we hardly spoke to each other. So last week by the time I had gotten home after class, I had convinced myself to tell my father that I loved him. It’s strange, but just making the decision seemed to lift a heavy load off my chest. When I told my wife, she jumped out of bed, gave me a big hug and for the first time in our married life saw me cry. We sat up half of the night talking and drinking coffee.

The next day I was up bright and early as if I had slept soundly all night. I got to the office and accomplished more in a couple of hours than I had the whole day before. At 9AM, I called my father to tell him I wanted to come over after work and talk to him. He reluctantly agreed. By 5:30, I was at the house. When my father answered the door, I didn't waste any time. I took one step inside and blurted out “Dad, I just came over to tell you that I love you.” Well, it was as if a transformation had come over him. Before my eyes, his face softened, the wrinkles seemed to disappear and he too began to cry. He reached out and hugged me, saying “I love you too, son, but I’ve never been able to say it.” My mother walked by just then with tears in her eyes. I didn't stay long, but I had’'t felt that great in a long time.

Two days after my visit, my dad, who had heart problems but hadn’t told us, had an attack and ended up unconscious in the hospital. I still don’t know if he’ll make it. So my message to all of you in this class is: don’t wait to do the things you know need to be done. If I had waited, I may never have another chance to do what I did."

And so my friends, your homework for this week is, go home and tell someone you love them before next Sunday. And it has to be someone you really love, but to whom you have never said those words before, or at least not for a very long time now. One day it will be your turn to tell us your own wonderful story of love.

PRESENTATION OF THE LORD

A scholar was conducting a study of an Amish village. The Amish are a branch of the Mennonite church who live in traditional rural villages far from industrialization and technology: no computers, televisions, refrigerators and telephones. In his study of the Amish village school, the researcher noticed that Amish children never screamed or yelled. That surprised him. So he decided to check it out with the schoolteacher. He told the teacher that he had not once heard an Amish child yell, and asked him why that was so. The teacher replied, “Well, have you ever heard an Amish parent yell?” The inference is clear: Like the parents, so the children!

We are all familiar with Mother’s Day and Father’s Day which we celebrate every year. Why is there not a Parents’ Day where we celebrate father and mother together as a couple? Today should be a good day to focus on both parents together, as we see both parents of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, together make the long journey to Jerusalem to present their firstborn child in the Temple as the law of God required. In the image of Joseph and Mary presenting Jesus in the Temple, we have a wonderful model of husband and wife united in practicing the faith and in raising their child in the faith.

We read that “When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord” (2:22) There is a confusion of detail here because, according to Jewish law, purification was for the mother alone while presentation was for the child. The story appears to be speaking of the two ceremonies as if they were one. Luke stresses the fact that they are doing it “as it is written in the law of the Lord” (verse 23). Joseph and Mary are presented as people who keep God’s laws. Moreover, they are presented as doing it together. It is easier to walk in the ways of God when husband and wife walk it together and encourage each other along the way. The author of Ecclesiastes had something like this in mind when he wrote: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). Husband and wife are companions in the journey of life, especially in the journey to our ultimate destination. We see this as we contemplate Joseph and Mary together in the Temple in obedience to God’s law.

The aspect of today’s celebration that some people have a problem with is this: why would the baby Jesus, who is not in a position to say yes or no, be initiated into the Jewish religion without his consent? This is a problem especially for those of us who question the value of infant baptism. Some Christians today feel that baptism has no value until a child reaches the age of reason and then is able to decide for oneself. But this is not the example that Mary and Joseph are giving us today. The concern about the value of infant baptism is a concern that is born out of the exaggerated individualism of the modern society. In the biblical era, people saw the whole family as one entity. The question of husband, wife and child belonging to different religions was unthinkable because religion was supposed to play a role in cementing the family unity. Thus we hear in Acts of the Apostles that when certain men and women were converted, they were baptised together with all their household (Acts 16:15, 31; 18:18).

If parents are supposed to provide their children with the basic necessities of life, what is more basic than one’s faith in God. No parents would think of allowing their children to decide whether they want to go to school or not, whether they want to learn the common language or not, whether they want to be a citizen of their country or not. We make these decisions for them, knowing fully well that when they grow up, they may decide to continue with what we gave them or abandon it. But only a foolish parent would refuse to send a child to school or teach a child their language and tradition in the name of respecting the child’s freedom to choose. Similarly parents have a responsibility to initiate their children into their faith traditions. This is what we see today in the feast of presentation as Joseph and Mary present Baby Jesus in the Jewish Temple.

As parents, we have the duty and privilege of raising our children in such a way that they grow up to become good and responsible citizens as well as committed children of God. The example of Joseph and Mary, and the example of the Amish community, show us that the best way to achieve this is not just by talking and shouting at them but by leading the way and showing them by the example of our own lives.

CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN OBJECTIFICATION: AN ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION

I would like to begin this write up by asking some fundamental questions. These fundamental questions seem to cover the aim, nature and the scope of this work. But it would be nice to note this before proceeding to the questions. The politics of contraception and women objectification and its moral issues are seriously linked to arguments of women’s freedom and right and is built on the Kant’s principle of not treating human person as a means to an end but as an end in itself. With this assertion, the questions read: what is contraception all about? What are the contraceptives? Does fertilized egg have right to live? Is it not a potential human being? Don’t you think that contraception could gradually and quietly lead to extinction of human race? What are the major types/forms of contraception? How does contraception entail women objectification? Do women have right to contraception since they are the owners of their body? To what extent do women have right to contraception? Do women have any right at all to contraception? Is contraception justifiable under any moral standards or schemata? By moral standard or schemata: one means mental or ethical framework by which an action is judged good or bad; right or wrong. What does the Church teach about contraception, contraceptives and women objectification? The above questions are existential and ethical. At this juncture one might ask: what is the meaning of contraception? And what forms does it take?
CONRACEPTION: WHAT IT ENTAILS
Contraception may be seen as the striking product of modernity. It is mass-produced and over half of the world’s products now use it. It has brought with its massive normalization and routinzation. Contraception and women objectification have become household terms both in public and private discourse. Contraception according to the Electronic Encarta Dictionary has three nuances. First, it is prevention of fertilization: the preventions of pregnancy using artificial methods such as condoms and birth control pills or natural methods such as avoiding sex during the woman’s known fertile periods. Second, it means preventing pregnancy and thirdly, it is deliberate prevention of pregnancy using any of several methods in birth control; preventing a female sex (egg) from being fertilized by male sex cell (sperm) and implanting in the uterus. For Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica, contraception is a deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation. From the above definitions, this phrase ‘wilful prevention of conception’ forms their common denominator. Having seen what contraception entails in an eye bird, one might ask: Are there forms of contraception?
KINDS OR FORMS OF CONTRACPTION
There are various kinds or forms of contraception as underlined in The Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica. It would be nice to classify them in groups for better articulation. The first method is: the Barrier Devices. This method involves spermicides, condoms both male and female and diaphragm method. Condom prevents sperm from entering the uterus by sheathing the penis with latex or rubber like- object. Diaphragm involves covering the uterine cervix with a cervical cap avoiding sperm from the uterus. Barrier methods simply bar sperm from entering the uterus; hence inhibiting conception. Second group is hormonal methods. Here drugs are used in preventing pregnancy. These drugs alter hormonal levels in women; it suppresses the hormonal signal sent by pituitary gland for the ovaries to release an egg. Under hormonal contraception, we have: birth control pill. Birth control pill is a combination of synthetic oestrogen and synthetic progesterone which inhabits ovulation. Other examples of hormonal contraceptive are: hormonal implant, contraceptive injection, contraceptive ring and, contraceptive patch. More still, we have another method called Intrauterine Device (IUDs). Plastics or metal objects are implanted inside the uterus to avoid fertilization of an ovum by semen. Beside IUDs, we have surgical method of contraception. It includes surgical sterilization which is one of the most effective forms of contraception; is permanent and generally irreversible. It also includes vasectomy which is the blocking or severing of the ductus deferentes (or vasa deferential) which transports the male gametes. Finally, we have withdrawal method or coitus interruptus (an earliest contraceptive method). It involves the withdrawal of penis from vagina before ejaculation, and is the one of the oldest methods and though it is not reliable, it is still widely used. Summarily, Coitus interruptus is one the oldest methods, is not reliable yet is still widely used and practised. Sterilization is one the effective forms of contraception, is permanent and irreversible; whereas hormonal contraceptive method is one the most effective methods and reversible too. It includes: birth control pills, Norplant and Depo-Provera, intrauterine device and condoms used with spermicides. The safest contraceptive methods include the use of barrier devices and the avoidance of sexual intercourse during the period of ovulation.
 CAN CONTRACEPTION/ CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN BE JUSTIFIED MORALLY?
From the above question, one is asking whether contraception/contraceptives and the objectification of women are morally right or morally wrong; morally good or morally bad. The above question could be answered with these ethical theories such as: Kant’s ethical imperative, personalism; existentialism, CD: Comprehensive doctrine and deontologism. First is: “Kant’s ethical imperative” (3rd formula) which states that: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in a person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. This particular thought asserts the dignity, freedom and nobility of womanhood. Hence, it judges the actions of those who indulge in contraception/contraceptives to be morally wrong since women are merely use as means to an end. Thus women are objectified, only seen as objects of sexual gratification or sexual toys to be manipulated or exploited. Similarly, “personalism” is a movement which upholds the primacy of the human person. Hence, a “personalist” would judge the actions of those who indulge in contraceptives to be morally wrong since it thwarts the nobility and the worth of womanhood and sees women as mere objects as opposed to subjects. Hence, women are objectified, instrumentalized and dewomanized. Next is “existentialism”. It is also movement that emphasizes on the individual responsibility and freedom. It was championed by Søren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger. For “existentialists”, those who engage in contraceptives are morally wrong since they are guilty of not allowing the fertilized egg to be and for depriving the “fertilized egg its freedom. Any conceived embryo has right to live. For “CD” which stands for “Comprehensive Doctrine” like Ten Commandment. It forbids: “you shall not kill’ and ‘other actions’ related to such an act. Hence, CD judges the actions of those who engage in contraceptives to be morally bad and ethically wrong and religiously sinful: and finally, ‘deontologism’ which is rooted philosophically in and popularized by the Kantian movement is focused on duty and goodwill. For deontologists, it is never the duty of women to prevent or inhibit conception and it does never involve goodwill at all rather bad will; hence, their action is morally wrong and bad will oriented. Finally, Natural law theorists would also argue against contraception since it goes against nature by blocking the natural process rooted in the metaphysics of finality which is fertilization, conception and partition. It would be nice to note that natural law according to Igboanusi in his book Normative Media Ethics designates the general dispositions and ends of those things and processes that are into being by natural processes and not by any intentional purposeful act of a creature. Thus, the proponents of natural law like Thomas Aquinas, John Finnis would see contraception and contraceptives as morally wrong since it obstructs natural process or it distorts the normal flow of nature thus abhorring artificiality of any sort. From the above ethical theories, it implies that contraception is intrinsically evil and as such denigrates the worth of women and also objectifies them. At his place, one might ask: what does the church say about contraception and women objectification?
THE CHURCH’S STAND ON CONTRACPTION/CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN
According to Adrian Thatcher in the book titled The Good News of the Body : Sexual Theology and Feminism( 2000) classified papal teaching on contraception into three types: First: it is contrary to natural law; second; it is contrary to the inseparable connection between procreative sexual activity and third; it is an expression of a decadent society, culture or mentality. In the first point contraception/ contraceptives is against nature and it is intrinsically evil since it objectifies and instrumentalizes women. For the Vatican 11 document, contraception is vicious and is intrinsically shameful since it makes humans mere objects especially women. Pope Paul V1 in his encyclical Humane Vitae noted that contraception’s use is either contributing to a culture of death or it is already a consequence of such culture. Pope Paul V1 maintained that contraception would justify behaviour leading to marital infidelity or for gradual weakening in the discipline of morals as we see in Humane Vitae sec. 17. Similarly, the encyclical Familiaris Consortio no 6 warned against contraceptive mentality. Continuing, the encyclical affirms that contraception is a direct evidence of selfishness. Hence, it sees human as means of achieving a selfish interest. In the document Evangelium Vitae nos 22 and, 24, contraception and abortion are linked with a culture of death; a conspiracy against life and another negative mentality of hedonism. Moreso, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae no 24 states that contraception is evidence of a veritable structure of sin, a war of the powerful against the weak and conspiracy against life. In like manner , the encyclical Familiaris Consortio underscores that contraception is associated with consumer and anti-life mentalities, ultimate reason for which is the absence of people’s heart of God…( sec; 30). Finally the encyclical Familiaris Consortio affirms that contraception makes for adultery more likely because they make pregnancy less likely and by contraception the husbands lose respect for their wives because they are seen as object of sexual pleasure and sexual gratification. On this note, contraception involves the objectification of women: merely as objects of sex: sexual toys for men: pleasure giving venture. Furthermore, feminists would argue that contraception contributes in sexual promiscuity, selfishness, lack of respect and contempt for life especially on women (cf Lisa Isherwood, 2000, The Good News of the Body: Sexual Theology and Feminism). Indeed, contraception/contraceptives involve the objectification of women since women are seen as sexual toys to be used and dumped. Thus contraception objectifies and instrumentalizes women thus leading to I: ID of Martin Buber and seinde of Martin Heidegger
EVALUATION/CONCLUSION
Contraception goes against “natural law principle and divine principle. It also contravenes societal norms of any rational and moral society. Contraception objectifies, instrumentalizes, reifies, denigrates the worth, right, value, dignity and sanctity of women. Contraception is in itself is intrinsically evil, viciously shameful, morally wrong and religiously mortal or sinful. For us to ensure the women’s dignity and right; we should abhor all forms of objectification, instrumentalization, exploitation and manipulation rooted in contraception and contraceptives. Thus, the rights, dignity and worth of a fertilized egg according to Kant are non-negotiable. They are inalienable rights and values which form the foundation of human society since fertilized ovum is a potential child as well as an actualized adult. Summarily, fertilized ovum should be protected and sincerely cared for since it will fully become a human person requiring genuine love and care devoid of self-interest and self-centeredness. We have seen the problems associated with the politics of contraception and its multi-factorial nature, types and implications. The individual woman has to be made to understand the medical, theological, psychological, social and moral implications of her actions pertaining to contraception/contraceptives. There is need to address contraception both in private and public sectors. Conclusively, one would ethically and socially say that the politics of contraception and contraceptives is extremely important in our contemporary society both nationally and internationally. Contraception strips women of their womanhood, peels off their dignity, disrobes them of their freedom, divests them of their value, sheds off their worth and above all undresses them of their sanctity. It thwarts the autonomy and privacy of the fertilized egg since it is weak. Indeed contraception is intrinsically evil; naturally abominable, ethically wrong and psychologically disgusting since it de-womanizes women. It is really an anti-social tendency and anti-life. Therefore, the fertilized egg has an inherent worth and sacredness. This inherent worth of the “fertilized egg’ is buttressed by the theological and philosophical viewpoints. As a result, the protection of fertilized egg should form the preoccupation of government of any ethical and rational society. Hence, any relativistic understanding of moral values with regard to human persons fails in upholding the dignity and the right of a fertilized egg.