|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Justinian, you are doing two things on this thread.
First of all you are ignoring the fact that it is perfectly possible to hold that whilst certain ends are desirable means to those ends may not be. I, personally, think that it is a rather good thing when the wiles of Al Qaeda are thwarted but I believe that it would be completely wrong for the fuzz to start torturing terrorist suspects in the course of their wile thwarting activities.
So do I. I can point to the consequentialist reasons why this would be wrong even before you get into the point that torture doesn't work.
quote:
The Catholic Church views contraception as a means of preventing abortion as being akin to using torture as a means of preventing terrorism.
In which case I want them to come out and say this. And they don't have a "it doesn't work" equivalent.
If they are prepared to say openly and sincerely that they don't care how many babies would be killed, encouraging contraception would still be worse - and to put it in those terms clearly and unambiguously, I would at least have a shred of respect for the honesty of that position. That does seem to me to be precisely what IngoB is claiming that the Catholic position is. Or if they were to try to create a ghoulish calculus.
quote:
I think that this is immensely silly but it is more intellectually coherent than accusing the Catholic Bishops of being murderers! murderers, I tell you!
Accessories to murder. I don't believe that they are themselves directly killing anyone.
[ 15. February 2012, 16:32: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If they are prepared to say openly and sincerely that they don't care how many babies would be killed, encouraging contraception would still be worse [etc.]
I've never got this argument, which goes thus: "The Catholic Church should encourage her faithful to use contraception in order to prevent them ignoring her existing teaching by procuring abortions." So people who are willing to flout the teaching of the Church on abortion are currently not contracepting because the Church forbids it? I mean, WTF?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Yawn.
Well, quite.
There is nothing new under the sun. Justinian once again (yawn) mounts his high hobby-horse. The hyperbole, the outrage, the wounded concern for the "bleeding and dying" - it's all been done before by him.
Move on, nothing new here, same old same old.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've never got this argument, which goes thus: "The Catholic Church should encourage her faithful to use contraception in order to prevent them ignoring her existing teaching by procuring abortions." So people who are willing to flout the teaching of the Church on abortion are currently not contracepting because the Church forbids it? I mean, WTF?
That isn't the argument. The argument is that the Catholic Church should get the fuck out of Public Health and stop sabotaging it.
If the Roman Catholic Church were to take the line that it didn't think that Roman Catholics should use contraception that would be one thing. Something I disagree with but could live with. It is the second that the Roman Catholic Church starts interfering to restrict the availability of contraception for non-Catholics that they cross the line from seriously misguided to outright evil.
And it was this that I was objecting to with respect to Trisagion when I made the hell call. It is what the Catholic Bishops I was objecting to were trying to do - take contraception away from employees whether or not the employees were Catholic.
There are many people who are willing to flout the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church because they are not Catholics. On contraception, on abortion, or on both. And when the RCC prevents them having access to contraception (as it was trying to do, triggering the hell call) then the Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is irrelevant.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am interested by only two points raised thus far;
1) It is consistent with RC theology/morality to advocate the use of contraceptives to mitigate the harm caused by non-marital sex (I think I had heard something about the pope saying something about this in relation to gay prostitutes now that I think about it)
&
2) The query as to why intentionally avoiding conception by using the rhythm method is OK according to RC teaching ?
If 1 is in fact the official teaching of the RC church it would good to see it get more air time. I would be interested in an answer to 2.
Personally, I agree with the use of contraception in marriage as required/desired and I also believe that Justinian is being a prick. If we put a condom on him, would it muffle the sound of his synthetic outrage ?
[ 15. February 2012, 17:21: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've never got this argument, which goes thus: "The Catholic Church should encourage her faithful to use contraception in order to prevent them ignoring her existing teaching by procuring abortions." So people who are willing to flout the teaching of the Church on abortion are currently not contracepting because the Church forbids it? I mean, WTF?
That isn't the argument. The argument is that the Catholic Church should get the fuck out of Public Health and stop sabotaging it.
Oh piss right off, Justinian - I'm not letting you away with that. That was your argument - you've just bottled it, that's all.
But, frankly, you're current argument is even more colossally lame.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the Roman Catholic Church were to take the line that it didn't think that Roman Catholics should use contraception that would be one thing. Something I disagree with but could live with.
But the RRC doesn't just think contraception is wrong for Catholics - it thinks it's wrong for people. It could be wrong, of course. But should it not be allowed to voice that opinion? Should it not be allowed to seek to persuade the government against what they think is wrong for the country? Any other groups you think should be silenced outside their own membership while we're at it?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is the second that the Roman Catholic Church starts interfering to restrict the availability of contraception for non-Catholics that they cross the line from seriously misguided to outright evil. [...] when the RCC prevents them having access to contraception (as it was trying to do, triggering the hell call) then the Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is irrelevant.
That's pathetic, Justinian. Contraception is ubiquitously available and cheap - often free. Catholics are preventing no-one from having access to contraception - they just would rather not be made themselves to pay for someone else to contracept. Suppose the govenment were trying to force employers to cover the purchase of cheap firearms for the protection and safety of their employees. Would it be wrong for those who though there should be greater, not fewer, restrictions on access to firearms to protest against being made to pay for them?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would like to make one specific point though. It is under-appreciated that the RCC has not outlawed contraception. She has officially outlawed only contraception in marriage. There are of course many conservatives who would like to generalize this, and often enough they will not make this distinction in their arguments. However, this is the actual situation. In consequence, it is for example possible by RC morals for a rape victim to use any means to avoid conception (but not to kill an already fertilized egg, which is in the moral realm of abortion). Indeed, the Church has apparently in the past allowed the use of the pill as preventive contraception for nuns operating in a war zone, where they were likely to be raped. Likewise, one can on current official RC doctrine argue that people should use contraception in extra-marital sex, and as it happens that is my opinion. Of course, people shouldn't have any extra-marital sex in the first place, as far as the RC is concerned. But if they do, one can validly suggest the use of contraceptives to reduce the harmful effects of the sin. [/QB]
If the RCC doesn't recognize marriages not performed by its priests, then it shouldn't have any problem with paying for its non-Catholic employees' birth control. None of them are married in the eyes of the RCC.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If we put a condom on him, would it muffle the sound of his synthetic outrage ?
It might but I am not sure it would be a morally licit way of achieving the desired morally licit end. Added to which, it couldn't be justified under the principle of double-effect because suffocation - always an intrinsically moral evil - would be a foreseen likely end.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
To Ruth: Except that the RCC does, prima facie, recognise non-Catholic mariages as natural, actual marriages. It just doesn't regard them as sacramental ones.
[ 15. February 2012, 17:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If the RCC doesn't recognize marriages not performed by its priests, then it shouldn't have any problem with paying for its non-Catholic employees' birth control. None of them are married in the eyes of the RCC.
But since the Catholic Church does recognise marriages not performed by her priests your argument falls at its first premise. As a matter of fact, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, priests (or bishops or deacons) don't perform marriages at all: they are merely the official witnesses of the marriage.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The argument is that the Catholic Church should get the fuck out of Public Health...
You'd have been a bit bloody stuck in large parts of the US for any kind of health care, public or private, if it hadn't been for the Catholic Church. If it had been left to secular humanists, there'd have been fuck all. Unless and until the citizens of your republic are prepared to establish a system of public health care, you'd just better reconcile yourself to the fact that the price of that is that the Catholic Church is in that space. You want to sabotage healthcare in the US: close down Catholic hospitals.
Secondly, you are not talking about public health: you're talking about the funding of private healthcare. If the debate in the US had been about whether contraceptive coverage should be part of a publically funded health care system, it would be a different matter but it wasn't. What it is about is compelling religiously affiliated bodies to pay for private healthcare in a manner contrary to the religious belief and practice of some of those bodies. Many of your fellow citizens believe that to be the making of a law to restrict religious freedom...and this from an administration that has abandoned, both at home and abroad, the use of the term 'freedom of religion" with "freedom of worship". I call that ominous.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Most Christian ethics is deontological. It looks at the nature of actions and the will of agents, not at the final outcome. This is a very humane position, since it does not measure deeds by their "success". If you tried to save someone, but failed, you are not therefore evil. You are good. Perhaps there was a better way, by which you could have succeeded. That still does not make you evil. You are then inept, but still good. Deontology concentrates on moral inputs, not outputs.
The basic moral setup we have here is: if you refuse X, which is evil, then I will do Y, which is even more evil. Consequentialism looks at the output, and hence says you should do X, because it avoids the greater evil Y. But deontology looks at the input and says that you should not do X, because it is evil. That someone else then does Y is not your fault. You didn't ask me to do Y if you do X. That's my decision, hence Y is my fault.
The only chance of attacking this is to claim that there is no choice. I cannot argue that killing someone with a sword is the sword's fault, because the sword decided to move in a manner that killed someone based on me flexing my muscles, sword in hand, in some perfectly innocent ways. The sword has no choice, it is being moved by me. Hence the action of the sword falls back on me.
Thus it is pointless to quote statistics, because that just tells us what people do on average, not what they can do. You must show that women can do no other but abort if contraceptives are unavailable. But women can in fact do other, they can choose not to abort. (And even if say a father forces a daughter to have her child aborted, at least the father could do other. The evil then is his.) So this does not work. The abortion is hence simply not the attributable fault of the person removing contraceptives. This however does not necessarily make them blameless!
If indeed more women abort if contraceptives are unavailable, then this certainly points to some problem and/or injustice. Why do more women feel they should make this choice under these circumstances? And what can be done to reverse that correlation? To simply shrug off such facts off would itself be evil. It may well be required that more social and financial support is given to women who become unintentionally pregnant. Closer to the bone, probably one has to look carefully if all children receive the warm welcome they should and all mothers the support they must. If we shun the "illegitimate child" and condemn forever its mother, we are setting up the circumstances for her moral failure. That then is our fault. Etc.
I think there is plenty to critique in the past and likely present performance of the RCC and society at large on these matters. But that requires a careful look at the social situation, not a blunt accusation of being an accessory to murder. That remains plain bullshit. And one should be careful to not simply remove all possible blame from the women who do abort and distribute it wherever one finds someone or something to blame. This in fact denies women their role as independent moral agent. They generally do make a decision, and if one believes that abortion kills an innocent human being, then they make a very wrong decision.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's pathetic, Justinian. Contraception is ubiquitously available and cheap - often free. Catholics are preventing no-one from having access to contraception - they just would rather not be made themselves to pay for someone else to contracept. Suppose the govenment were trying to force employers to cover the purchase of cheap firearms for the protection and safety of their employees. Would it be wrong for those who though there should be greater, not fewer, restrictions on access to firearms to protest against being made to pay for them?
I would have it put on the record that I think this thread is silly and unproductive, but there are problems with this in particular, strictly from a legal stand point. I don’t agree with the bishop of Rome on contraception—specifically when it comes to contraception in the context of marriage, but I can hardly fault his Church for inconsistency.
I think Roman Catholics are fighting this issue on the wrong front. The Church is arguing, in efffect, that it doesn't have to pay for what it doesn't like. But if US law classifies contraception as a legitimate healthcare concern, as 26 states already do, then it cannot refuse to pay for contraception for its employees any less than it can refuse to pay for cancer treatment.
Really, the line the Roman Catholic Bishops are pedaling only makes it look like they think they are above the law and have the right to dictate the religious beliefs of employees of Catholic institutions, neither of which is the case.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
How many people actually feel constrained by the teachings of the RCC with respect to the regulation of their fertility? If the figures produced (above) are accurate, not even that many practising RCs. The irritating and patronizing argument that *RCC Bans Condoms and Spreads HIV* is easily nulled by the fact that the most booming form of Xtany in sub-Saharan Africa is the evangelical-type church.
This thread is simply an excuse for Justinian to vent (once more) his visceral hatred of the RCC.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Secondly, you are not talking about public health: you're talking about the funding of private healthcare.
I have to assume there is much public money which flows in and out of these so-called 'private' organizations. To me that makes it a bit murkier. And murkier still is my (possibly incorrect but strong nonetheless) perception that the bishops weren't nearly so outraged by decades of child sexual abuse as they are about some woman getting birth control on her work health insurance. Doesn't do much for my opinion of the institutional Roman Catholic Church – but it was pretty low anyway so this is just icing on the cake.
Fuck their altar boys literally. Fuck their employees figuratively. And spray gold radiator paint on every piece of molding in the chancel and the nave. That's the rock Jesus built on? Pity. (Plus I've been reading recently about the papacy of Sixtus IV which isn't helping either.)
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Well I agree with you, Sine, the kiddie scandal is likely the death-knell of the RCC as we know it.
And after they've come for the RCC, who's next?
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Accessories to murder. I don't believe that they are themselves directly killing anyone.
It might be worth pointing out that accessory to murder has a particular legal significance in the UK. See for example the section headed "England and Wales". There are also variations in other countries but the underlying principles appear to be just two.
1. An accessory is punishable as though he or she was the principal offender.
2. A crucial test is mens rea (guilty mind).
You can throw as much mud as you like at the surrounding arguments, but it won't do your argument, in its present form, any good. It really is a pity you weren't intending to make something like "A Modest Proposal". That would at least have the defence of satire. But you were so insistent that you were being earnest, even in Hell, where going gloriously "over the top" or "under the bottom" is just normal coinage.
Gildas again
quote:
The other thing you are doing is sounding like a Jack Chick from an alternate earth who doesn't believe in God and who has a fairly good grasp of science but otherwise has retained all his prejudices intact. Given the fairly open goal that Catholic teaching and praxis so often presents to the hostile critic your track record of volleying the ball into Row G is distinctly impressive.
That's the way your argument looks right now. In tatters. Anything you'd like to modify, retract?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<My previous post was in answer to Justinian on top of the page. The discussion had moved on by crossposts, which made it look out of place.>
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
If 1 is in fact the official teaching of the RC church it would good to see it get more air time.
The problem here is one of social engineering. Should the RCC be seen advertising the use of condoms under any circumstances? Hell no, say many, they will all just grab the condoms and forget all the fine arguments and conditions near instantly. Frankly, that's hardly an unrealistic assessment.
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would be interested in an answer to 2.
Last time I tried this I think we ended up with a dozen pages... Deciding when to have sex is not necessarily the same as altering what happens when one has sex, even if having sex at a particular times has the same altered outcome. Because in deontology we are not looking at the outcomes, but at the nature of the act and the intent behind it. Hence the same outcome does not imply the same moral status. Starting with the intent, the intent to "not have any more kids at the moment" can be good, though it need not be. But that's a different discussion. Let's just assume we can tick off this intent as not being the problem.
The nature of the act is then the question. Let us say that "sex as God intended" is vaginal intercourse with ejaculation of semen, which subsequently fertilizes an egg that implants in the uterus, leading with some delay to the birth of a new human being. Now, of course this does not always happen. For example, past menopause a woman will not conceive any longer, even if the man still is fertile. Can one however blame the woman for this lack in the sexual act? No. She has not caused menopause, it has happened to her. One may argue that the inability of performing the perfect act should motivate the couple to cease having sex at all. But the act is of course still good to a degree, e.g., for the unity of the spouses. So there is nothing wrong with still performing the not-perfect act here.
Exactly the same applies for sex that just happens to fall on an infertile day of the woman (who otherwise is still of child-bearing age). There is nothing wrong with that. The same also applies for sex where one or both of the partners are permanently infertile due to natural causes. Again, nobody is culpable for the imperfect nature of the sexual act there, so nothing speaks against realizing its remaining good. However, if one uses contraceptives, or intentionally renders oneself sterile, then the resulting inability of the sexual act to be "as God intended" can be blamed on one's own actions. And since the primary function of the sexual act is procreation, this lack then outweighs the remaining secondary good that this sexual act still could realize. This is hence a sinful action of which one becomes culpable.
What if one now has sex only when the woman is naturally infertile? Just like in the case when this happens accidentally, of course the nature of the sexual act is imperfect. But nobody has caused this lack in the sexual act as such, the woman just happens to be infertile on this day. Of course, there is an intent here, namely to have sex only when the sexual act happens to be imperfect but not when it is perfect (or at least has a much better chance of being so). But this intent is of course nothing else but the intent to "not have any more kids at the moment". And we said that we would consider this intent to be good here, e.g., because the family really cannot afford another baby. This good intent has been cleverly realized in terms of the natural conditions of the female body. Being clever is however not evil. So yes, there's something wrong with the sexual act itself, but the couple is not culpable there, and there is nothing wrong with the intent. Hence the act is morally licit.
What then is wrong with contraception? Not the intent to have less children, at least not necessarily so. Rather the means, since one then actively changes the nature of the sexual act, therefore becoming culpable of the induced lack. In summary: Contraception makes the sexual act less perfect than God has allowed it to be, and is hence evil. Natural family planning uses the imperfections God has permitted in the sexual act, and is hence licit (if used with good intent).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think what I find odd is the "just happened" not to be fertile on that day. Well, it doesn't just happen though does it ? It is planned to be a non fertile day. I don't see how that intent is really different to fitting a coil.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I don't see how that intent is really different to fitting a coil.
Well…if the weather forecast was for rain, you wouldn't plan a picnic, would you? The weather is out of your control, but you can plan your actions around it. As opposed to saying "We can't have a picnic because I just turned on the sprinkler in the backyard."
(I actually followed and understood Ingo's post - I think - which is not always the case. Either I'm getting smarter – not likely – or he's getting better at writing down to my level.)
[ 15. February 2012, 20:57: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What then is wrong with contraception? Not the intent to have less children, at least not necessarily so. Rather the means, since one then actively changes the nature of the sexual act, therefore becoming culpable of the induced lack. In summary: Contraception makes the sexual act less perfect than God has allowed it to be, and is hence evil. Natural family planning uses the imperfections God has permitted in the sexual act, and is hence licit (if used with good intent).
I'm trying wrap my head around this, but I can't see the difference between sex when a woman is temporarily naturally infertile, and having sex using a condom. Both are sex for fun/love only and deliberately intended to prevent sperm fertilising egg. Can it be because the rhythm method doesn't involve any extra equipment e.g. a condom?
I mean, rain is a natural Good without which we'd all surely die, but we nevertheless use umbrellas.
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
I mean, rain is a natural Good without which we'd all surely die, but we nevertheless use umbrellas.
Or in the case of this thread, rubber macs.
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Or in the case of this thread, rubber macs.
AtB Pyx_e
Wasn't macs planked some years back?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
heh you and your quarky sense of humour
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The obvious objection to the RC position is twofold.
First of all. If the Catholics get to duck out of picking up the tab for the sexual health bills of non-ministerial employees then God help the non JW cleaner at Jehovah's Witness HQ in Brooklyn who needs a blood transfusion which, I assume, she should not receive as the Catholic position is that this would be a violation of the religious freedom of the JW hierarchy not to fund lifestyle choices of which they disapprove?
Secondly the whole 'natual' vs 'artificial' contraception thing is a crock of ess-aitch-one-tee. Enthusiasts for natural contraception are invariably keen to tell one that it is as good as the pill, better than the IUD and knocks the condom into a cocked hat (as it were, in my first deanery we used to have an Anglican parish priest with a bee in his bonnet about this, needless to say he was a single man). It's a bit much claiming that a middle aged couple playing vatican roulette are somehow more open to the transmission of life than a pair of drunken teenagers wrestling with a condom. If natural family planning was all that and a bag of chips then, logically, the Pope ought to ban it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
While I do not agree with the position of the RCC on birth control, I understand the quandary (or, at least think I do.)
Scripture and tradition (at least some tradition) tells them that sex for some purpose other than procreation is not a good thing and is therefore not to be encouraged, much less sponsored.
(Forget the arguments for and against and their validity.)
My, necessarily unscientific anecdotal evidence is that sex with observant Catholic women is nothing at all like an unplanned event. I was given day ranges when I could expect to - er - get closer, and day ranges when a kiss goodnight was all I was going to get. No amount of "Oh baby, come one, I'll be careful" got me anywhere at all except out the door.
My guess is that my girlfriend's attitude is more the norm than not among observant Catholic women in first world countries who do not use official birth control methods.
Assume for a moment I am correct. (A stretch, I know) How does that affect the argument?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most Christian ethics is deontological. It looks at the nature of actions and the will of agents, not at the final outcome. This is a very humane position, since it does not measure deeds by their "success". If you tried to save someone, but failed, you are not therefore evil. You are good. Perhaps there was a better way, by which you could have succeeded. That still does not make you evil. You are then inept, but still good. Deontology concentrates on moral inputs, not outputs.
This does deserve a response. And you have very neatly outlined the problem with pure causistry. Pure consequentialism would work if and only if you had perfect knowledge.
Deontological ethical systems do you the very useful thing of drawing you a map. They mean you don't need to have perfect knowledge of the situation - you can follow the map that is laid out in front of you. However deontological systems fail because the map is not the territory. Things change and the map does not have perfect knowledge. A purely deolontological driver would drive straight forward across a bridge that was removed last year simply because the map says it is there. (The Consequentialist would not be that daft. But equally they would need to wind their window down to ask for directions all the time because they didn't have a map at all, so would have serious problems making it to the bridge unless they already knew the territory). Pure deontology would work if and only if you had a perfect map and were perfectly able to read it.
Rejecting deontology entirely is bad, agreed. But so is rejecting consequentialism entirely. You need the deontological rules most of the time, but just like following a map, if the map marks a bridge and by following it you end up in the river then the map is wrong. And if by following your code of ethics you end up increasing what you consider to be the number of murdered babies, the map you were using is almost certainly wrong.
Because human knowledge and understanding are imperfect both absolute consequentialism and absolute deonotlogy are crippled moral systems.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I think what I find odd is the "just happened" not to be fertile on that day. Well, it doesn't just happen though does it ? It is planned to be a non fertile day. I don't see how that intent is really different to fitting a coil.
Let me for simplicity's sake pretend that God can sin and contradict Himself. (May He forgive my boldness.)
Then in the case of natural family planning the situations is that God has sinned grievously by imposing a serious defect on the sexual act: frequently and indeed even regularly, it will fail to achieve procreation, its primary goal. The NFP couple has good intent, namely not having any more kids (because they cannot afford that). They also have a desire for sex, which is good simply because sex is good (and good beyond just procreation). They now see the evil God has done, and realize that they can work good from this evil. Simply by having sex only on those days that God has sinfully rendered infertile, they can fulfill both their good intent of no kids and their good desire for sex. Yes, the sex that does occur is defective, but that is firmly God's fault.
Now we have another couple. They also have a good intent of limiting the number of their kids. They also have a good desire for sex. However, they choose to fit a coil, so that the woman becomes infertile all the time. All the sex that follows hence falls short of the procreative intent for sex. Of course, one could say that some of the time the woman would have been infertile due to God's sin. True. But the woman now is at least some of the time rendered infertile by the actions of the couple. They can of course work the same good of the evil done as the NFP couple. Perhaps even more good, since they can have sex more often! They will have no kids, good. They have lots of sex, good. However, at least some of the time the sex will be defective strictly because of their actions. Some of the time they will hence do evil. And one may not do evil to achieve good. Therefore the good they work out of the defect to sex they have caused is illicit.
In short, the question is who/what caused the infertility, the defect of the sexual act. In that respect these approaches differ, making one morally licit, the other not.
Sine, you've got it. Foxymoron, you've got it, too. Except that this is not really about the "equipment", but about what it achieves. Still, a good rule of thumb is that sex is licit if God could make it result in a baby without having to overcome any "unnatural" factors (if God would not have to explode a condom, remove a coil, cleanse the chemicals released by a drug,...).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Rejecting deontology entirely is bad, agreed. But so is rejecting consequentialism entirely. You need the deontological rules most of the time, but just like following a map, if the map marks a bridge and by following it you end up in the river then the map is wrong. And if by following your code of ethics you end up increasing what you consider to be the number of murdered babies, the map you were using is almost certainly wrong.
Your whole last post, this paragraph in particular, just shows that you simply fail to grasp the demandingness of moral prohibitions. Since you don't get it, ask yourself what consequences would justify raping someone. Get back to me when you've thought about that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That isn't the argument. The argument is that the Catholic Church should get the fuck out of Public Health and stop sabotaging it.
Oh piss right off, Justinian - I'm not letting you away with that. That was your argument - you've just bottled it, that's all.
Context matters. I wasn't calling everyone to hell. I was calling Trisagion and Catholic Bishops to hell for a specific thing they were trying to do.
quote:
But the RRC doesn't just think contraception is wrong for Catholics - it thinks it's wrong for people. It could be wrong, of course. But should it not be allowed to voice that opinion? Should it not be allowed to seek to persuade the government against what they think is wrong for the country?
It should. But at the same time it should accept that every single additional abortion this causes is their responsibility.
But you are trying to shift the ground here. You asked how, if everyone followed Roman Catholic teaching there would be a problem. But it isn't trying to do that. It is trying to deny contraception even to those who don't. This is underlined by people such as Trisagion who try to elide contraception and abortion by claiming that the problem with Roman Catholic Contraception amounts to "redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care"
That is complete and utter bollocks. Contraception is not abortion. And is preventative care. And it was that particular dishonest statement that caused me to call Trisagion to hell.
quote:
That's pathetic, Justinian. Contraception is ubiquitously available and cheap - often free. Catholics are preventing no-one from having access to contraception - they just would rather not be made themselves to pay for someone else to contracept.
I wish I had such rose tinted spectacles. In America, 55% of Emergency Rooms in Roman Catholic hospitals refuse to provide Emergency Contraception even for rape. Contraception is not always freely available, despite the best efforts of benevolent organisations like Planned Parenthood. (Of course that's an old study - and numbers were significantly changing at the time).
And yes, Emergency Contraception is contraception. And is the most important access issue because it is needed immediately.
quote:
Suppose the govenment were trying to force employers to cover the purchase of cheap firearms for the protection and safety of their employees. Would it be wrong for those who though there should be greater, not fewer, restrictions on access to firearms to protest against being made to pay for them?
No it wouldn't. Protest all you like. Speak up all you like. And underline how much of a moral vacuum Roman Catholic teaching is. I just hope you and your church do not succeed at this attempt to make the world a worse place.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your whole last post, this paragraph in particular, just shows that you simply fail to grasp the demandingness of moral prohibitions. Since you don't get it, ask yourself what consequences would justify raping someone. Get back to me when you've thought about that.
I can't think of any that would come unless I had perfect knowledge.
Why? Have you managed to work out some that are forseeable with human rather than perfect knowledge?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
It's a bit much claiming that a middle aged couple playing vatican roulette are somehow more open to the transmission of life than a pair of drunken teenagers wrestling with a condom.
It's not Vatican roulette but Vatican chess these days, as you have acknowledged. And the question who is more "open to the procreative aspect of sex" is not determined by the greater chance to get pregnant. One can have exactly zero chance of procreating and still be reckoned totally open to the procreative aspect of sex. The basic question is: if God switched the natural fertility of the couple to 100% (possibly miraculously), how likely is a pregnancy? It may well be the case that in the middle age couple this is close to 100% (since they thought they were doing this on an off day, and are making all the right moves), whereas it is close to 0% for the teenagers (because their fertility was full bore anyway, but their condom is working just fine).
Furthermore, unless the drunken teenagers happen to be married, their using a condom is anyway compatible with RC morals. Their having sex is certainly not, but given that they will sin that way, the harm reduction afforded by the condom can very well be seen as the dominant consideration.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Assume for a moment I am correct. (A stretch, I know) How does that affect the argument?
Not at all, of course. The whole moral discussion of NFP vs. contraception stops at the contradiction in moral terms of an "observant Catholic girlfriend having sex with me". It will probably not further your aim of getting into her pants if you point out that it is inconsistent bullshit to insist on NFP for fornication. But that's pretty much what that is. Well, it pretends a kind of respectability in the very midst of sin. I will not pretend that I have never calmed my conscience that way...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
You'd have been a bit bloody stuck in large parts of the US for any kind of health care, public or private, if it hadn't been for the Catholic Church. If it had been left to secular humanists, there'd have been fuck all.
You mena because there are next to fuck all secular humanists in America? Yes, once you get past the moral blindness that infects the Roman Catholic Church it does quite a lot of good.
quote:
Unless and until the citizens of your republic are prepared to establish a system of public health care, you'd just better reconcile yourself to the fact that the price of that is that the Catholic Church is in that space. You want to sabotage healthcare in the US: close down Catholic hospitals.
Oh no. I don't want them closed down. I want them effectively nationalised. Single payer insurance at a minimum.
quote:
Secondly, you are not talking about public health: you're talking about the funding of private healthcare.
I suppose I shouldn't really expect you to understand medicine any more than you do ethics. You can manage Public Health through private provision. The Germans and Canadians do - and contraception (especially condoms) is very much a part of Public Health. (Abortion on the other hand is not a part of public health - and although I disagree with the RCC on the subject, it is not obviously morally wrong here).
Of course you've already demonstrated that you don't understand healthcare by trying to claim that Roman Catholic opposition to contraception was about "the conscientious objection to killing other human beings" in reply to RuthW. And it was that post that caused me to call you to hell. I'm not sure whether this reflected ignorance or disingenuousness.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me for simplicity's sake pretend that God can sin and contradict Himself. (May He forgive my boldness.)
If you read the bible, God does contradict himself. See Jonah in which Jonah does preach what God commanded - "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown."
Jonah Chapter 3 verse 10:
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
How much more explicit do you want?
quote:
Then in the case of natural family planning the situations is that God has sinned grievously by imposing a serious defect on the sexual act: frequently and indeed even regularly, it will fail to achieve procreation, its primary goal.
Not proven. And IMO not even true. The primary goal of the sexual act is, as I have demonstrated, not procreation. If the primary goal of the sexual act in humans were procreation, humans would not have a number of adaptions that make procreation unlikely, such as the inability to easily tell when a woman is fertile.
The sin therefore would not be God's but the arrogance of whoever claimed to know the mind of God and got it wrong by not reading the Book of Creation.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the question who is more "open to the procreative aspect of sex" is not determined by the greater chance to get pregnant. One can have exactly zero chance of procreating and still be reckoned totally open to the procreative aspect of sex. The basic question is: if God switched the natural fertility of the couple to 100% (possibly miraculously), how likely is a pregnancy? It may well be the case that in the middle age couple this is close to 100% (since they thought they were doing this on an off day, and are making all the right moves), whereas it is close to 0% for the teenagers (because their fertility was full bore anyway, but their condom is working just fine).
This is rather fascinating, actually. And does tie in with things you've said earlier.
It seems rather focused on form over substance. Making the right moves - even if you're making them with zero expectation of a result.
I'm actually quite fascinated with the implications for gay married Catholics, should any exist...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sine, I thrashed the Internet for that data and couldn't come up with it. The best I could do was data from 1975 (I know, I know) at which time the average Catholic family had 2.27 sprogs, and the average Protty family 2.17.
Here's the article: Religion, Religiousness and Fertility in the U.S. and in Europe (warning: PDF)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Dayum Mousy. We found the same thing.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Theory is all well and good, but I'd be interested in knowing the average number of kids western Roman Catholic families typically have today.
Italy, which is the Vatican's backyard, has a fertility rate of 1.33 per woman. Spain, Portugal, Chile and Brazil are fairly close. Argentina and Mexico are around 2 per couple and the Philippines is just over 3.
Can't pull that off without loads of birth control.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, unless the drunken teenagers happen to be married, their using a condom is anyway compatible with RC morals. Their having sex is certainly not, but given that they will sin that way, the harm reduction afforded by the condom can very well be seen as the dominant consideration.
It would be wonderful for the bishops to say that plainly and loudly and repeatedly. When I was younger, I had a fair number of friends who were Catholic and unmarried and sexually active. They didn't use contraception because they were Catholic, and everyone knows that it's sinful for Catholics to use contraception.
It would also be a good thing for the bishops to clarify whether those drunken teenagers can use the Pill to avoid pregnancy, as long as they're not married.
And it would be wonderful for the bishops to explain why it's wrong for women to take the Pill to treat endometriosis, excessive menstrual bleeding, or premenstrual dysphoria disorder. If that's not wrong, they'd need to explain why they refuse to cover effective treatment for medical disorders that afflict women, but not men.
[ 16. February 2012, 02:54: Message edited by: Josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Old farts who don't get to have sex not understanding the importance of communicating clearly and compassionately about sex.
Imagine that.
[ 16. February 2012, 02:59: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I used to work with a woman who had suffered from terrible gynecological problems -- debilitating pain, life-threatening bleeding, etc. Despite this, being a good Catholic wife, she had six children, on a couple of occasions nearly killing her and also sent her husband into a great deal of anguish. She finally wound up in the hospital -- an RC hospital -- during another round of misery, and asked her doctor about getting a referral for a hysterectomy. She said that his response -- the steepled fingers, the patronizing twaddle about being "open to new life" and the Cliff Notes version of Why the Magisterium Says We Mustn't Mess With Our Fertility, the impression that this doctor was far more concerned about this woman's uterus and its continued output on behalf of the Church than about her own life -- finally sent her, and her husband, over the edge. She found a supportive non-RC OB-GYN who didn't think twice about advising a hysterectomy in light of her medical history. In the meantime the couple stopped going to church; never went back; had no regrets.
It's difficult for me to see anything remotely good and right about how the RCC treated this family. But then again I'm Lutheran.;-)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And it would be wonderful for the bishops to explain why it's wrong for women to take the Pill to treat endometriosis, excessive menstrual bleeding, or premenstrual dysphoria disorder. If that's not wrong, they'd need to explain why they refuse to cover effective treatment for medical disorders that afflict women, but not men.
More importantly, why they expect to be able to reap the tax benefits of providing health insurance to their employees while doing so in a gender discriminatory manner? If you cast your mind back to Bob Jones University v. United States, it was ruled that while certain religious institutions are allowed to behave in a discriminatory manner, the U.S. government is not obligated to give them the special tax breaks usually granted to publicly beneficial organizations.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Of course you've already demonstrated that you don't understand healthcare by trying to claim that Roman Catholic opposition to contraception was about "the conscientious objection to killing other human beings" in reply to RuthW. And it was that post that caused me to call you to hell. I'm not sure whether this reflected ignorance or disingenuousness.
Or that the particular point was so surrounded by the childish venting of your usual prejudices that it was lost on me. How stupid of me.
The expression "preventive care" is the euphemism of choice of the current US administration to cover not only barrier methods of contraception - which clearly do not involve the killing of another human being - bit also anovulent pharmaceutical methods - which can and do cause that through the prevention of the implantation - but more particularly the provision of what this side of the pond is called the "morning after pill", which acts in an abortifacient manner.
And as for the role that secular humanists might have played in the US had there been more of you than there are: the evidence for elsewhere isn't promising but perhaps you can put aside your usual spittle-flecked invective and make a case out for why you'd be different. Your sheer bad temper and capacity to rant about the same issues time and again on these boards doesn't fill me hope.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I called for the banning of the Roman Catholic Church not Roman Catholic shipmates, M & M. Okay, you red planetted prick. Read often?
Since the said RCC shipmates are part of the said RCC, what you are calling for amounts to the same. Since you claim you didn't mean that, what exactly did you attempt to mean?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
