|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The Church's teaching is clearly not perfect. When life is actually held sacred, it will not be endangered by producing it so recklessly past the limits of what families, or the earth's resources, can sustain.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
It really seems like the sort of thing a well-developed theory of human individuality should have worked out already.
How? Short of Divine revelation, I see no way of tackling this question. I also see no particular reason why to worry about this. Unless somebody is trying to induce twining... I'm not aware that anyone is trying to do that currently.
"How?" Are you asking me how I think Catholic theology might determine where the extra person comes from when a fertilized egg ("individual human being") ends up producing two persons? I'm sure I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem much more esoteric than a lot of other things the Church has very firm opinions of.
As to why - well, it is rather an obvious question to ask, isn't it? You've often likened theologians to scientists - but maybe not so much in the curiosity department, I guess.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If one is going to insist the moment of ensoulment is when the sperm and the egg have their first tango, then the question of twinning is either a reductio, or at the very least needs to be accounted for.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If one is going to insist the moment of ensoulment is when the sperm and the egg have their first tango, then the question of twinning is either a reductio, or at the very least needs to be accounted for.
I agree entirely but that isn't what Catholic theology holds. We don't know when ensoulment takes place and as our knowledge of the process of generation has developed the point at which it is reasonable to speculate that it might occur has moved back closer to that moment of, as you so neatly put it, the first tango. There is a principle in Catholic moral theology called the tutioristic principle according to which, when the consequences of an action might be gravely morally wrong - for example, the deliberate killing of a human being - then one should take the morally safest course. So here that would work, I propose, as follows:
a. we believe that the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is always gravely morally wrong;
b. we know that human beings have a divinely infused immortal soul: it is a constituent part of their human nature;
c. we know that at some point in the process of human generation some things which formerly weren't human beings combine to become human beings;
d. we don't know for sure when that happens but it must be after the event in c. above because only human beings have these human souls;
e. the safest moral course to follow, having regard to a. above is to treat as a human being the immediate product of that first tango, unless and until our scientific knowledge suggests otherwise; therefore
f. it is not morally licit to engage in any act which deliberately seeks to end the life of the immediate product of that first tango.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wonderful. Then you'll agree that the pill is not trying to do f.
As I've learnt in recent days, the pill is trying to prevent the prior event from ever occurring. There's a small theoretical chance that it MIGHT cause f. But as I've pointed out somewhere along this great big enormous mess, there's a small chance that a whole lot of other things might kill people - from pain management through to driving cars.
But you've talked about doing something deliberately. Having established that the pill ISN'T trying to do this deliberately, I trust you will now turn around and acknoweldge that there is no problem with the pill.
*holds breath*
[ 19. February 2012, 07:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wonderful. Then you'll agree that the pill is not trying to do f.
If the Pill is trying to prevent the implantation of and thereby foreseeably bringing about the end of the immediate product of the first tango than it would not be morally licit on the grounds I set out. If it is attempting to prevent the first tango altogether, its use would not be morally licit for altogether different reasons adequately set out in this short document.
The point I was making related specifically to the issue of twinning.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS It is probably worth adding at this point that, despite the fact that I am emphatically non-Catholic, the whole notion that the pill was killing human beings shortly after conception did bother me a bit. I would have, in fact, followed a chain of reasoning remarkably similar to the one that you've just set out.
But thanks to the Dead Horses thread related to this one, I now realise my concern was based on a completely false understanding of the way that the pill works. It isn't targeted at just-fertilised embryos at all. It's targeted at preventing fertilisation from ever occurring.
At which point, I no longer have any concerns. And I certainly wouldn't have used my concerns to block other people from accessing the pill to begin with, but I think it's worth broadcasting the fact that my own personal concerns are now gone. The pill isn't aimed at deliberately killing people any more than pain management of the terminally ill is aimed at deliberately killing people, or driving motor vehicles is aimed at deliberately killing people, or any other activity that carries a known risk of death.
So having now presented such a compelling argument for protecting human life, the smartest thing you can do is admit that you've just argued AWAY FROM the pill being a problem. If you're going to continue to have a problem with contraception, you'll have to do it on some other kind of basis where you stop prancing about the notion of saving human life and start saying that you want to protect all the little sperm and eggs as well and make sure they have a chance at BECOMING humans, never mind that God seems to have designed reproduction so that millions upon millions of the little buggers die even during normal heterosexual sex.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wonderful. Then you'll agree that the pill is not trying to do f.
If the Pill is trying to prevent the implantation of and thereby foreseeably bringing about the end of the immediate product of the first tango than it would not be morally licit on the grounds I set out. If it is attempting to prevent the first tango altogether, its use would not be morally licit for altogether different reasons adequately set out in this short document.
The point I was making related specifically to the issue of twinning.
Only you think it's adequate. As far as I can see it just asserts some positions fairly blindly. Refer to previous comments about 'go forth and multiply' being entirely appropriate when the world population is 2, and bloody stupid when the world population is 7 billion.
I have this vision of God being the Sorcerer's Apprentice, desperately trying to stop the brooms and discovering the brooms aren't bloody well listening. They're wrecking the place instead.
He's even given them the TOOLS AND SCIENCE to stop, and they ignore Him.
[ 19. February 2012, 07:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The bits of that 'short document' that are, in my view, complete bullshit are hidden behind some citations of earlier documents, written in the pre-pill days. Where might I find the links to those previous documents?
References 12 and 16 in particular.
[ 19. February 2012, 07:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Only you think it's adequate.
We know that's not true because at least two other shipmates on this particular thread have explicitly used its reasoning. In any event, the description "adequate" referred to the fact that the reasoning was set out in the document not a comment on the quality of the argumentation.
quote:
As far as I can see it just asserts some positions fairly blindly.
Oh come on: either you haven't actually read the document, or you are entirely ignorant of its theological and historical hinterland or you don't wish to engage seriously with what it says. This is Hell, so I guess you don't have to.
quote:
Refer to previous comments about 'go forth and multiply' being entirely appropriate when the world population is 2, and bloody stupid when the world population is 7 billion.
We have been hearing this sub-Malthusian horseshit now for 200 years. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. My school masters told me thirty years ago that the world population could not possibly be fed at 5 billions: my father tells me that he was taught the same thing sixty years ago but the figure then was 3 billions.
quote:
I have this vision of God being the Sorcerer's Apprentice, desperately trying to stop the brooms and discovering the brooms aren't bloody well listening. They're wrecking the place instead.
He's even given them the TOOLS AND SCIENCE to stop, and they ignore Him.
What a charming image. Unfortunately our discourse is likely to be very limited if it can be brought to an end at any point by an appeal to your imagination whenever it suits you.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
We have been hearing this sub-Malthusian horseshit now for 200 years. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. My school masters told me thirty years ago that the world population could not possibly be fed at 5 billions: my father tells me that he was taught the same thing sixty years ago but the figure then was 3 billions.
AHA!
Now we're getting somewhere.
So, you'd like to just keep pushing until we find the breaking point, is that it?
When exactly would you like to stop procreating so much? 10 billion? 20 billion? 50?
Perhaps you'd like to wait until God finally figures you're not going to get the message or use the tools provided, and strikes the world infertile a la 'Children of Men'?
Ironically it's also science that has enabled us to keep pushing the population boundaries. It's also science that has been able to push people's life expectancy and stop so many of their children dying before adulthood. But when it comes to THIS science, suddenly it's "hands off the human body, procreation is sacred".
If the position was against all medicine that saved people from disease, and against all the science that helps prevent famine, and there was a general 'it's all God's will' attitude I might just buy it. But instead we have this selective approach that sees procreation, specifically, as something that Must Not Be Touched - because hey, the very future of the human race is at stake, right?
No. It bloody well isn't!!!
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS What are your thoughts on global warming, Trisagion? Given the hints of a 'the world is fine, we can't possibly be slowly destroying it, God would never allow such a thing' attitude, I see the potential for a whole new Hell thread.
Oh, and maybe you and your Daddy never learnt the meaning of the world 'sustainable'. There's a difference between being able to feed 5 billion people for now and being able to feed 5 billion people sustainably, without creating a net deficit and destroying resources faster than they can be recreated. Your teachers probably mentioned the idea of sustainability but you were too busy to notice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
You see, what is so thoroughly disingenuous about your position is that at one moment it masquerades as a manifestation of personal choice relating to your own fertility and just the next moment it's about population control. Which is it: is it the free control of Orfeo's reproductive choices which other people must be compelled under pain of law to fund or is it about Orfeo's getting to decide just who should be allowed to have children? Choice or coercion? Or is it both and if so who gets to make the free choice and who doesn't?
The truth is the population control arguments in favour of birth control were and always have been so closely connected to racist and eugenicist notions of who should and who should not be allowed to reproduce that it's stink can be detected in space.
Those related to personal choice are of a different order, of course, and are undertaken often with perfectly morally respectable intentions. The issue there is about morally licit means to responsible ends. You and I disagree about which means are licit and which are not. I have pointed you to the reasoning behind my position. This being Hell you are entitled not to engage with them or even to make scatological references to them but don't pretend to yourself that you've offered a reasoned critique of them or a similarly reasoned justification of your own position a and since you brought it up, your practice.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS What are your thoughts on global warming, Trisagion? Given the hints of a 'the world is fine, we can't possibly be slowly destroying it, God would never allow such a thing' attitude, I see the potential for a whole new Hell thread.
Looks pretty likely to me that it's true, even allowing for the discernible cooling in annual temperatures since 1998. It also seems pretty clear that a major component is human activity.
quote:
Oh, and maybe you and your Daddy never learnt the meaning of the world 'sustainable'. There's a difference between being able to feed 5 billion people for now and being able to feed 5 billion people sustainably, without creating a net deficit and destroying resources faster than they can be recreated. Your teachers probably mentioned the idea of sustainability but you were too busy to notice.
How nice to be so elegantly patronised.
The net deficit isn't being caused by feeding the worlds poor: it's being caused by over feeding the relatively small number of the world's rich and indulging their demands for cheap travel and cheap material excess. Stopping Africans reproducing will do bugger all about that.
What you really don't seem to be able to grasp is that I believe that there may be both morally permissible and morally impermissible means to an end and that I believe that is never licit to choose those that are impermissible to achieve that end, no matter how good that end might in itself be.
[ 19. February 2012, 08:38: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
You see, what is so thoroughly disingenuous about your position is that at one moment it masquerades as a manifestation of personal choice relating to your own fertility and just the next moment it's about population control. Which is it: is it the free control of Orfeo's reproductive choices which other people must be compelled under pain of law to fund or is it about Orfeo's getting to decide just who should be allowed to have children? Choice or coercion? Or is it both and if so who gets to make the free choice and who doesn't?
The truth is the population control arguments in favour of birth control were and always have been so closely connected to racist and eugenicist notions of who should and who should not be allowed to reproduce that it's stink can be detected in space.
Where have I said ANYTHING about the need to force population control? The entire point is that women would actually do a pretty damn fine job of controlling the population all by themselves. If only you'd let them, instead of insisting that they keep having babies even after they personally think they have enough babies.
My point wasn't that we have to force the population down, it's that you can stop forcing it to go UP.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS A little newsflash Trisagion. Take a quick squiz at my profile. I think you'll find my own fertility is under control just fine!!
...you thought I needed the pill?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, yes, orfeo, but IngoB is a human being under authority, isn't he? As are all Catholics.
I didn't take issue just now with following the church's teaching - in fact I said the exact opposite. I took issue with declaring that the church's teaching is perfect.
That is also taking issue with the Catholic Church's teaching. Here is IngoB making precisely that point.
quote:
I actually believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been put on earth to spread God's word. And that therefore she is infallible in matters of faith and morals, where she speaks definitely (and to be obeyed by faithful assent where she speaks merely strongly). That's my fundamental principle in this matter.
Constructive dialogue with Catholics just needs to recognise such things. Otherwise we get into a lot of shouting past one another.
[Mind you, this is Hell. Shouting is fine, just as long as we remember we aren't really arguing seriously at that point ... ]
In any case, despite the above and AFAICS, Catholicism does not require slavish, mindless obedience. For example, Trisagion and IngoB hardly strike me as either mindless or slavish. Some personal strain over doctrinal moral prohibition seems perfectly normal, is probably going on all the time for most Catholics, but they have means within the faith of handling that. And there is always "wittily, in the tangle of one's mind".
Such matters are issues for most protestant Christians as well. The doctrinal criteria and authority will be different, that's all.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I know what IngoB said, because that's exactly where I started. I just don't think the word 'therefore' makes sense. It's hiding a leap between two assertions where the second doesn't follow from the first.
I cannot see how you can sensibly get from 'given a task by God' to 'therefore carries out task perfectly'. I can certainly accept the notion of being given a task by God. I can even accept the notion of being empowered by God to perform a task. But the notion that any human agent of God will then perform the task perfectly seems to make a mockery of the doctrine that only God is perfect.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where have I said ANYTHING about the need to force population control? The entire point is that women would actually do a pretty damn fine job of controlling the population all by themselves. If only you'd let them, instead of insisting that they keep having babies even after they personally think they have enough babies.
My point wasn't that we have to force the population down, it's that you can stop forcing it to go UP.
Your point completely missed the point in issue which is about the morality of the means and the fact that, despite the hitherto assumed presumed protection of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the HHS mandate appears to seek to compel my co-religionists in the US to fund means to which they are conscientiously opposed. As I have said elsewhere on this thread the second question seems likely to be settled by the SCOTUS: the first question, however, seems to be the one over which you and I have a disagreement.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS A little newsflash Trisagion. Take a quick squiz at my profile. I think you'll find my own fertility is under control just fine!!
...you thought I needed the pill?
I'm sorry. I rather over-read you 0825 post.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where have I said ANYTHING about the need to force population control? The entire point is that women would actually do a pretty damn fine job of controlling the population all by themselves. If only you'd let them, instead of insisting that they keep having babies even after they personally think they have enough babies.
My point wasn't that we have to force the population down, it's that you can stop forcing it to go UP.
Your point completely missed the point in issue which is about the morality of the means and the fact that, despite the hitherto assumed presumed protection of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the HHS mandate appears to seek to compel my co-religionists in the US to fund means to which they are conscientiously opposed. As I have said elsewhere on this thread the second question seems likely to be settled by the SCOTUS: the first question, however, seems to be the one over which you and I have a disagreement.
I would be more sympathetic if you presented a moral alternative that actually worked. Telling women to avoid the fertile time of the month is a lovely theory, but it makes an awful lot of assumptions about being able to accurately keep track of that and/or being able to successfully fob off a husband for days at a time.
There are a vast number of natural processes, both in and outside the body, that appear to pose no moral problem when they are controlled by human intervention, but then there's this one where suddenly not letting nature take its course becomes a big problem.
As to funding things that you oppose, that is pretty much a fact of life for every citizen of every country. I don't see why an objection couched in religious terms gets to be a trump card over an objection couched in any other way. My taxpayer dollars fund immigration detention centres here in Australia. I despise immigration detention centres. I think the detention policy is wrong at a very fundamental level. Church leaders are among those who have called to have it scrapped. None of that means that if I jump up and down say I object to detention centres because I am a Christian, I suddenly become exempt from paying for them.
[ 19. February 2012, 12:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Your point completely missed the point in issue which is about the morality of the means and the fact that, despite the hitherto assumed presumed protection of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the HHS mandate appears to seek to compel my co-religionists in the US to fund means to which they are conscientiously opposed. As I have said elsewhere on this thread the second question seems likely to be settled by the SCOTUS: the first question, however, seems to be the one over which you and I have a disagreement.
The big problem with this assertion, as has been previously noted, is that under the HHS mandate Catholics aren't funding contraception, nor are they being forced to. All that's being "forced" upon them is a principle that, just like you can't call the billiards table in the employee lounge "health insurance", you can't call a plan which doesn't cover prescription drugs a "prescription drug benefit". All this is about is the Church's desire for its adherents to get a tax break for something they're not providing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There was a related thread about two years ago covering a similar issue. At core, it was essentially the same argument: the Catholic Church's insistence that it was both exempt from complying with U.S. employment law and that it was still entitled to tax breaks derived from compliance with that law, despite their lack of compliance.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... As to funding things that you oppose, that is pretty much a fact of life for every citizen of every country. I don't see why an objection couched in religious terms gets to be a trump card ..... None of that means that if I jump up and down say I object to detention centres because I am a Christian, I suddenly become exempt from paying for them.
OMG, can you imagine the tax savings if you could??!! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) A Christian could be exempt from the portion of taxes going to military spending and interest, just for starters. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
despite the hitherto assumed presumed protection of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the HHS mandate appears to seek to compel my co-religionists in the US to fund means to which they are conscientiously opposed.
They're not. Obama's compromise allows them not to fund it. The insurance companies fund it instead.
But there is something else that your co-religionists in the US are overlooking, and it's an extremely important point. In this country, there is no official religion. You are entitled to practice whatever religion you want, to do and to refrain from doing whatever your faith enjoins you to do and to refrain from doing, no matter what anyone else thinks of that religion. At the same time, you are not entitled to require anyone else to adhere to the practices of your faith, to do or to refrain from doing whatever your faith enjoins them to do and to refrain from doing.
This allows the enormous religious diversity in this country to be accompanied by enormous religious tolerance.
In my workplace, there are observant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and a variety of Christians, along with agnostics, atheists, and probably some others I'm missing. No matter where things are on your projects, no one objects to the Jewish guy leaving really early on Fridays during the winter, or to the Muslims working limited hours during Ramadan, or to my taking Holy Friday or Bright Monday off work every year. When we have a corporate cook-out, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that everyone there will be able to eat.
My workplace is a bit more diverse than the average workplace, but the basic "deal" holds anywhere.
But if anyone said, "My religion forbids the consumption of pork, so no pork should be served at the corporate cook-out," the deal would fall apart. You are free to abstain from pork, but you are not free to impose the restrictions of your faith on me.
And that is exactly what the RC bishops are trying to do. The rules don't apply to churches and seminaries and any other institution where everyone who works there is presumed to be a member of the same faith. The rules only apply to those institutions where employment is not limited to people of a particular faith. And in that context, the accepted social compact is that you can do whatever your religion requires, but you can't push the requirements of your religion onto me.
The bishops are putting that social compact at risk. And because the RCC is a minority religion in this country, that's a dangerous thing for them to do. Dangerous for them and their church. Dangerous for me and my church.
They need to back off. The rules were tweaked so that they would not be required to do what they object to doing. Any further protest on their part makes it look like they want to force their religious scruples onto everyone else. Here, the fact that they think their scruples are universally applicable is entirely irrelevant. They are entitled to think that. They can even try to persuade people to agree with them. But they can't try to push their scruples onto people who have not chosen to be part of their faith. It's not how we do things. It's not how we accommodate religious diversity.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
e. the safest moral course to follow, having regard to a. above is to treat as a human being the immediate product of that first tango, unless and until our scientific knowledge suggests otherwise;
But what we know now about twinning does exactly suggest otherwise. It fairly screams otherwise. And this you have not addressed.
[ 19. February 2012, 15:53: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
e. the safest moral course to follow, having regard to a. above is to treat as a human being the immediate product of that first tango, unless and until our scientific knowledge suggests otherwise;
But what we know now about twinning does exactly suggest otherwise. It fairly screams otherwise. And this you have not addressed.
Likewise the existence of human genetic chimeras (where one human person results from two fertilized eggs).
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Your point completely missed the point in issue which is about the morality of the means and the fact that, despite the hitherto assumed presumed protection of the first amendment to the US Constitution, the HHS mandate appears to seek to compel my co-religionists in the US to fund means to which they are conscientiously opposed. As I have said elsewhere on this thread the second question seems likely to be settled by the SCOTUS: the first question, however, seems to be the one over which you and I have a disagreement.
Not at all. What you and your co-religionists want to do is force insurance companies to make provision that is an average of 15-17% more expensive than it would be if they didn't follow your rules rather than medical advice.
This is not about one single penny of yours going towards contraception. Like most good methods of public health and preventative care, contraception is incredibly cost effective.
Interesting question - would you be willing for every single Roman Catholic organisation to pay 15% more for health insurance than the non-Roman Catholic competition. Because that would look to me a lot more like a principled stand, willing to pay for the cost of the medical care you seek to deny your workers rather than claiming that it's your money being used for medical care.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Pretty Purg-ish hereabouts. Reading recent posts suggests to me that the moral prohibition and socially utilitarian arguments have got very intertwined.
I think the Catholic position is that if we can point to socially useful consequences of disobeying what they believe is an absolute moral prohibition, that butters no parsnips. Socially useful consequences may be seen, I suppose, as a matter of human calculation, overlooking the possibility that the calculated "benefits" may be missing something more important further down the line. The apparently socially useful may in the end turn out to be counter-productive. In any case, a line has been drawn which should not be crossed.
Where these moral/utilitarian distinctions seem to me to get very murky is well illustrated by Josephine's fascinating post. There is the quite specific Romans 12 guideline "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" which seems to be well followed by what she describes as a "social compact". I think it is more than just a social compact. It looks to me to be following Christian understandings on faith and morals.
How do the Catholic contributors see that?
[ 20. February 2012, 07:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I do have an argument, just not one which you would accept.
[snip]
All this applies to your standards as well.
[snip]
Moral argument runs out of steam once one comes to the foundations, and I do not believe in yours.
The key difference is this - Justinian is not trying to force everyone else to comply with his morality. Unless I've badly misunderstood him, he is happy to allow those who disagree to follow whichever reproductive morality they choose.
The RCC, on the other hand, seeks to force everyone it has any kind of power over - non-RCC employees, in this case - to obey its strictures. It is not content merely to boss its own adherents around while seeking to persuade non-adherents that its arguments have merit, it seeks to compel compliance regardless of whether the people being compelled believe it or not.
This is wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that forcing people to act against their beliefs is evil. And, as it appears to be a tenet of RCC belief that one should not do evil even if it achieves a good result, I submit that on those grounds alone the RCC should stop trying to force non-RCC people to obey its reproductive morals.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Not at all. What you and your co-religionists want to do is force insurance companies to make provision that is an average of 15-17% more expensive than it would be if they didn't follow your rules rather than medical advice.
Just on that statistic, I offered it in good faith. But having read the actual source material (I should know better than to trust journalists) the 15-17% figure includes time lost to medical leave as an expense to the employer. Despite this it is still cheaper for insurance companies to include contraception than to not.
And as Marvin says, I'm not in favour of forcing anyone who doesn't want it to use contraception. I am in favour of giving everyone access to it - and those with a lower ability to pay need it more because they can normally less easily afford a child. And if you have an employer based insurance model then that's the model you have.
--------------------
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
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
With world population now standing at, what? Seven billion people? Any threats to human continuity appear now to stem largely from increasingly dangerous and nuclear-armed competition for increasingly scarce resources to support ever-reproducing humanity.
Hey, that explains why Santorum is so gung-ho for a war with Iran. Population control without contraception!
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You are confused. I actually believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been put on earth to spread God's word. And that therefore she is infallible in matters of faith and morals, where she speaks definitely (and to be obeyed by faithful assent where she speaks merely strongly). That's my fundamental principle in this matter. Of course, it helps that I can argue much of RC morality from nature by reason, and that I can show that none of it is contrary to nature or reason. But I have no problem with admitting that my position on sexuality is fundamentally religious, not philosophical.
And I believe that the above is as strong an example of the sin of pride as I've ever seen.
quote:
But I do have an argument, just not one which you would accept. I can argue what "natural" sex is like. I can, under the assumption of "natural moral law", argue that this is what sex should be like.
And under the assumption of "natural moral law", I am arguing that sex is ordered to the social and pleasurable functions to the active detriment of procreation in a way seen in very few other species. Therefore even if you accept "natural moral law" has any relevance to the price of tea in China, claiming that sex is ordered to procreation simply because the first function of sex was procreation is like claiming that a computer is ordered to arithmetic or codebreaking. Yes, the first ones were designed for that and they can all do it. But we have many more uses for them now.
quote:
Given your examples, we can make a fair guess that you have essentially utilitarian morals and believe that there is some kind of human right to "free sexual expression".
One of my fundamental practical principles is that no human or organisation of humanity is morally omniscient - which means that it is a moral duty to be on guard against errors in your own morality. I further believe that when your moral principles lead directly to piles of dead bodies that's an incredibly large clue that it's time to reevaluate. (It may not mean that you change your morality - sometimes piles of dead bodies, as in WWII and the American Civil War are the least bad choice). But you need to be very sure of your ground. Which means examining it from all angles. Faith alone just isn't going to cut it.
As for a right of free sexual expression, bollocks. I don't believe that anyone has the right to fuck kids. Not Roman Polanski, not a parent, not a priest, not a teacher, not a stranger. (The case is much greyer when the kids are about the same age). I don't believe that anyone has the right to rape another human being. I could go on. However unless it conflicts with categorical imperatives in other fields, I see no problem with the excercise of free artistic expression in fields that include the sexual.
--------------------
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
And on a complete popcorn link and showing how, in the absence of a valid moral argument the opponents of contraception are scraping the bottom of the barrel, apparently The Pill causes prostate cancer.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Where these moral/utilitarian distinctions seem to me to get very murky is well illustrated by Josephine's fascinating post. There is the quite specific Romans 12 guideline "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" which seems to be well followed by what she describes as a "social compact". I think it is more than just a social compact. It looks to me to be following Christian understandings on faith and morals.
Thanks, Barnabas. I think so, too, but I didn't want to argue it on faith and morals, because quite frankly, based on what the Catholic contributors here have said, I don't understand Catholic morals, and to the extent that I do understand them, I don't consider them particularly Christian. It seems to me that our Lord Jesus, when teaching about the keeping of the Law, thought that outcomes mattered. He acknowledged the commandments, acknowledged that God had given them, but said that the Pharisees had missed the entire point. Breaking the law was not in and of itself evil. The laws were ordered to bring about good results. If the law interfered with that, then according to Him, it was lawful to do things that brought about good results, even on the sabbath.
Rules that exist and are to be enforced, not because of any evil results that anyone can point to if you don't follow them, and in the face of evil results that clearly result if you do, are not compatible with Christian morality as I understand it. All rules boil down to two: Love God, love your neighbor. And since we're really good at fooling ourselves about the former, we're told that we can't do the former unless we're doing the latter.
The fact that people die as a result of lack of access to oral contraceptives, and they don't die as a result of having that access, saying that it's moral to provide that access seems like a no-brainer. Even if using contraception does some sort of mystical harm to the mystical benefits of intercourse, each person should be able to decide for themselves to what extent they value those mystical benefits, and to what extent they value other benefits of oral contraception (including a lower risk of death). If I'd rather have sex that is less beneficial in some mystical way in order to have a lower risk of dying, that should be my call.
And the claim that sex produces mystical benefits only when you might have a baby, and if you use contraception then God can't give you a baby is one of the most totally bogus things I've ever heard. If God can give a virgin a baby, you think a condom is going to get in his way if he decides to give you one?
But, yeah, since I don't work for a RC institution, the place where their rules hit me is in the deal that has been worked out in this country that allows people in religious minorities to practice our faiths freely. They're putting that deal at risk, and that makes me angry.
The deal that Obama gave the RCC allows them the freedom to protect their scruples for themselves. In this country, in our system, that's all they get. They may not like it, and they may even say that it puts them in a position where they're doing evil -- but I honestly don't buy that. I don't think it does, and I don't think that they think it does.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Thanks, Barnabas. I think so, too, but I didn't want to argue it on faith and morals, because quite frankly, based on what the Catholic contributors here have said, I don't understand Catholic morals, and to the extent that I do understand them, I don't consider them particularly Christian. It seems to me that our Lord Jesus, when teaching about the keeping of the Law, thought that outcomes mattered. He acknowledged the commandments, acknowledged that God had given them, but said that the Pharisees had missed the entire point. Breaking the law was not in and of itself evil. The laws were ordered to bring about good results. If the law interfered with that, then according to Him, it was lawful to do things that brought about good results, even on the sabbath.
Rules that exist and are to be enforced, not because of any evil results that anyone can point to if you don't follow them, and in the face of evil results that clearly result if you do, are not compatible with Christian morality as I understand it. All rules boil down to two: Love God, love your neighbor. And since we're really good at fooling ourselves about the former, we're told that we can't do the former unless we're doing the latter.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Pretty Purg-ish hereabouts. Reading recent posts suggests to me that the moral prohibition and socially utilitarian arguments have got very intertwined.
I think the Catholic position is that if we can point to socially useful consequences of disobeying what they believe is an absolute moral prohibition, that butters no parsnips. Socially useful consequences may be seen, I suppose, as a matter of human calculation, overlooking the possibility that the calculated "benefits" may be missing something more important further down the line. The apparently socially useful may in the end turn out to be counter-productive. In any case, a line has been drawn which should not be crossed.
Where these moral/utilitarian distinctions seem to me to get very murky is well illustrated by Josephine's fascinating post. There is the quite specific Romans 12 guideline "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" which seems to be well followed by what she describes as a "social compact". I think it is more than just a social compact. It looks to me to be following Christian understandings on faith and morals.
How do the Catholic contributors see that?
Perhaps that should read the Catholic contributors who have an obligation to defend the official position.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just an invitation, not an obligation.
Thanks Josephine. One of the things I wrestle with in my own understanding is the distinction between values and rules. Rule generally come across as "ought to" things, seem primarily to be about behaviour. Values seem to have much more to do with inner attitudes. I think this is what the prophet was trying to get across in speaking about having laws inscribed on our hearts. And Paul was doing something similar in the famous Philippians 2:5 scripture about having the attitude or mindset of Christ - and then goes on to speak of selfless humility. Selflessness and humility seem to speak much more about what is going on in the heart.
A topic maybe for a separate thread?
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And the claim that sex produces mystical benefits only when you might have a baby, and if you use contraception then God can't give you a baby is one of the most totally bogus things I've ever heard. If God can give a virgin a baby, you think a condom is going to get in his way if he decides to give you one?
I've always wondered what that idea does to couples who are too elderly to have children, or have fertility problems.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And the claim that sex produces mystical benefits only when you might have a baby, and if you use contraception then God can't give you a baby is one of the most totally bogus things I've ever heard. If God can give a virgin a baby, you think a condom is going to get in his way if he decides to give you one?
I've always wondered what that idea does to couples who are too elderly to have children, or have fertility problems.
The Abraham and Sarah argument, I suppose
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Never mind that so-called Natural Law is merely a textbook example of the Naturalistic Fallacy...
Have you actually tried to understand Natural Law other than merely standing on the shoulders of philosophical dwarves and excitedly bleating about the "naturalistic fallacy"? The fact is that the so-called "fact/value distinction" (in the works of David Hume, G.E. Moore et al) is a fiction since it confuses the conceptual distinction between goodness and being with a supposed real distinction between them.
In reality, being and goodness are the same and this is what allows us to derive moral goodness in the natural moral law from goodness in general as applied to the good and being of human nature.
[ 21. February 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: Craigmaddie ]
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Have you actually tried to understand Natural Law other than merely standing on the shoulders of philosophical dwarves and excitedly bleating about the "naturalistic fallacy"? The fact is that the so-called "fact/value distinction" (in the works of David Hume, G.E. Moore et al) is a fiction since it confuses the conceptual distinction between goodness and being with a supposed real distinction between them.
Yes I have. I've tried hard. And the more I've looked the deeper down the rabbit hole I've gone. And the more Roman Catholic Philosophy has resembled Wonderland, complete with paying words to mean what you want them to.
quote:
In reality, being and goodness are the same and this is what allows us to derive moral goodness in the natural moral law from goodness in general as applied to the good and being of human nature.
In reality, nature is often red in tooth and claw*. Being is not the same as goodness unless you are defining goodness to be the same as being. Cancer is. And is almost certainly entirely natural. That doesn't make it good.
You are claiming that to be is to be good. This is contrary to my observation. The "supposedly real" distinction is very much real - and only by blinding yourself to creation, and to e.g. what a fox will do when it gets into a henhouse can you seriously claim otherwise.
Roman Catholic "Natural Law" therefore , as you understand it, rests on an assertion that is subject to test and can be shown to be false. It's an imposing edifice built on sand.
Actually, I'm incorrectly summarising Roman Catholic Natural Law above - the logic it works under doesn't care about cancer or that nature is often red in tooth and claw. What it seeks to do is to define nature and goodness at the same time. It defines that which is natural, that which is good, and that they are the same. By comparing it to nature rather than selective and distorted accounts of nature I am trying to treat it as an honest foundation for morals rather than one that eats itself in an orgy of circular logic. Or a philosophical piece of sleight of hand that attempts to point to nature as a basis while not openly admitting that it is not pointing to nature but pointing to a map of nature that is drawn in accordance with the decisions that have already been reached rather than an attempt to honestly map nature.
Taking one trivial example, homosexuality is natural. However it is not on the Roman Catholic map of nature however promenant in nature it is. If, as you claim, being and goodness were the same then the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't be homophobic. It would accept that which is as good. But regardless of what actually is, the map kept by the Roman Catholic Church (which was normally put together in good faith) does not include this - therefore it claims that which can objectively be seen to be natural in numerous species, not just humanity, to be "objectively disordered".
And this is entirely ignoring the point that Roman Catholic Teaching routinely cuts against the conscience - which is mean to be an. In this case, it is clear and obvious to most people outside the framework of Roman Catholic teaching that contraception, as we now have it, is good. It saves lives. Lots of them. You pretty much need a specifically Roman Catholic understanding of Natural Law to come to the answers Roman Catholics have come to. If Natural Law genuinely were universal (and accurately applied) then the Roman Catholic Church would have many many more allies than it does here. It would at the very least be a controversy among Anglicans, among Quakers, among Jews, among Humanists, and among every other religious and philosophical group out there. This is especially the case as standards have shifted. Two hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic belief on contraception was the mainstream. The arguments were out there. But they were discarded by just about everyone when the situation changed and instead of poison we had The Pill. Mysteriously, there isn't a great ethical debate except against the Roman Catholic Church - and even that is a house substantially devided.
Actually, as the writing of Humanae Vitae showed, even back in 1966 the conscience of those with a direct understanding of the nature of the sexual act was in accord. The only people to dissent from the recommendation from the 72 person Pontifical Commission on Birth Control were 4 theologian priests, 1 cardinal, and 2 bishops. That is where the moral debate and dissention is. Right in the heart of the Catholic Church - by the overwhelming majority of people who know how contraception fits in with nature.
* It is also often symbiotic and benevolent. I am not claiming all nature is vicious and mean. Merely a non-trivial fragment.
--------------------
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
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
Justinian,
The theory of the Natural Law is not the intellectual property of the Catholic Church. Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero, Hugo Grotius, Richard Hooker, Sir William Blackstone, John Wild etc were all non-Catholic defenders of Natural Law.
From Ontology by Peter Coffey:
quote:
When the thesis is formulated in the traditional scholastic statement, "Omne ens est bonum: All being is good"; it sounds a startling paradox. Surely it cannot be contended that everything is good? A cancer in the stomach is not good; lies are not good; yet these are actual realities; cancers exist and lies are told; therefore not every reality is good. This is unquestionably true. But it does not contradict the thesis rightly understood. The true meaning of the thesis is, not that every being is good in all respects, or possesses such goodness as would justify us in describing it as "good"; in the ordinary sense, but that every being possesses some goodness: every being in so far as it has actuality has formal, intrinsic goodness, or is, in other words, the term or object of natural tendency or desire. This goodness, which we predicate of any and every actual being, may be (i) the term of the natural tendency or appetite of that being itself, bonum sibi, or (2) it may be conceivably the term of the appetite of some other being, bonum alteri.
This understanding of ontological goodness depends on the recognition of final causes - both intrinsic (in the case of bonum sibi) and extrinsic (in the case of bonum alteri) - in nature. If you deny final causes then there can be no talk of goodness being a transcendental of being.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I don't see a way for the argument from natural law to work against contraception without it also working against vaccinations. Is there some particular reason it's okay to fiddle with the immune system but not the reproductive system?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Craigmaddie
c/o The Pickwick Club
# 8367
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't see a way for the argument from natural law to work against contraception without it also working against vaccinations. Is there some particular reason it's okay to fiddle with the immune system but not the reproductive system?
The purpose of vaccination is to help the immune system fulfil its proper function. If I were deliberately to do something that was contrary to the finality of my immune system, which is health, then that would be immoral.
From Suma Contra Gentiles Book III Chapter 122:
quote:
Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species.
--------------------
Via Veritas Vita
Posts: 1093 | From: Scotchland, Europeshire | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't see a way for the argument from natural law to work against contraception without it also working against vaccinations. Is there some particular reason it's okay to fiddle with the immune system but not the reproductive system?
The purpose of vaccination is to help the immune system fulfil its proper function. If I were deliberately to do something that was contrary to the finality of my immune system, which is health, then that would be immoral.
Except the proper "natural" function of the immune system is to not provide immunity to diseases which it has not yet encountered. Vaccinations do an unnatural end-run around this "natural good". Given that women are not constantly ovulating, I'm unconvinced that controlling the timing of ovulation is any more "evil" than controlling the release of antibodies.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
From Ontology by Peter Coffey:
quote:
When the thesis is formulated in the traditional scholastic statement, "Omne ens est bonum: All being is good"; it sounds a startling paradox. Surely it cannot be contended that everything is good? A cancer in the stomach is not good; lies are not good; yet these are actual realities; cancers exist and lies are told; therefore not every reality is good. This is unquestionably true. But it does not contradict the thesis rightly understood. The true meaning of the thesis is, not that every being is good in all respects, or possesses such goodness as would justify us in describing it as "good"; in the ordinary sense, but that every being possesses some goodness: every being in so far as it has actuality has formal, intrinsic goodness, or is, in other words, the term or object of natural tendency or desire. This goodness, which we predicate of any and every actual being, may be (i) the term of the natural tendency or appetite of that being itself, bonum sibi, or (2) it may be conceivably the term of the appetite of some other being, bonum alteri.
This understanding of ontological goodness depends on the recognition of final causes - both intrinsic (in the case of bonum sibi) and extrinsic (in the case of bonum alteri) - in nature. If you deny final causes then there can be no talk of goodness being a transcendental of being.
Ah, the other version. The version I'd term as not "All is good." But "There is that of good in everything." This, if taken seriously leads straight to moral relativism as there is good in everything. Which means to reject anything you are rejecting good. (Note: I don't say that moral relativism is a bad thing. It isn't. It is a necessary thing to interact with the world on its terms rather than trying to force it into your mould).
Catholic moral teaching therefore rejects what it itself accepts as good under your reading of natural law. It claims natural acts and inclinations to be "intrinsically disordered" - rather than seeking to draw things into the light, it seeks to snuff the light out. If Omne ens est bonum, there is no such thing as being "intrinsically disordered" (assuming that you equate good with ordered). Or for an inclination to be "objectively disordered".
This is not to say that even under a morally relativistic framework you can't decry something as wrong. There are plenty of actions that snuff out the Light in something or diminish it.
But if there is good in all then you can not claim that something is wrong on its own merits. Because that is flatly contrary to your claim that there is good in all. You can claim that something extinguishes the good in other things (as for instance murder does) or damages it (paedophillia) or that it increases the amount of evil in the rest of the world. But this is not the logic used by the Roman Catholic Church as outlined by any Catholic I have spoken to or read. For instance IngoB claims that contraception is bad because it leaves sex not open to procreation. This is irrelevant. Omne ens est bonum - sex not open to conception is, and is good. (As the actress said to the bishop). You do not get to claim that simply because there was one initial purpose, other purposes are off limits. There is good in other purposes so they must be taken on their own merits. Is sex not open to procreation good? (IMO yes if done well). You do not get to argue that it isn't based on other forms of sex.
You can then get back to a deontological praxis by formulating rules that best attempt to encourage the growth of the light. Or you can go for consequentialism. But even if you take the deontological praxis consequences matter. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
The consequences of accepting that there is that of the Light in everything are, I believe, so utterly different from Roman Catholic moral reasoning, with its 'objectively disordered' and its 'ordered to procreation' that it hadn't crossed my mind that that might be the basis they claimed for Natural Law.
--------------------
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 Craigmaddie:
From Suma Contra Gentiles Book III Chapter 122:
quote:
Nor, in fact, should it be deemed a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of generating and bringing up children, on the argument that it is either a slight sin, or none at all, for a person to use a part of the body for a different use than that to which it is directed by nature (say, for instance, one chose to walk on his hands, or to use his feet for something usually done with the hands) because man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use. However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species.
Dude. There are over six billion of us. I live in a city of millions. The preservation of the species is not under threat. Overpopulation as a form of gluttony is a bigger threat. And even if it was, sperm grow and die. And replenish. This would only be an issue if sperm ejeculated outside the body would of necessity be enjeculated inside a female body without contraception. And honestly, with 50% of the population being men, you'd be looking at a baby boom the likes of which we've never seen.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
That's what annoys me the most, probably. Context is important when spreading God's word. What God said when there were 2 people on Earth ought not to be blindly extrapolated into something that the Church claims God is continuing to say when there are 7 billion of us.
Whether there even is overpopulation is debatable. But let's for the sake of argument assume that we are in a situation where we have multiplied enough. Well, lo and behold, we now also have the right tool to limit reproduction: natural family planning. And yes, I practice what I preach there - for close to a decade now. As a matter of fact, my wife and I started that long before I became a Christian, for entirely non-religious reasons. NFP has been shown to work well in different cultures and for people of different educational backgrounds. It does require the cooperation of the spouses, but I think this is less of a problem in practice than often assumed, and where it is a problem, there it is a one that the pill does not really solve either.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, fine, so the church has been put on earth to spread God's word? How the hell does that lead to an implication that the church has perfect hearing and never makes a mistake while passing on the message?
Nobody has claimed that she does. It is regrettable that you feel neither the need to read carefully what I write (for I made the necessary distinctions) nor to look up what the RCC actually claims. In short, there are many "levels of truth" in the RCC. The highest one, where the Church teaches definitively on faith and morals, is protected by God Himself against error. Below these infallible truths, there are some where the Church has spoken clearly and insistently. There a good Catholic should typically obey even thought it is possible that the Church errs, simply out of respect for her authority. And then there's a lot of less certain stuff, where one typically can pick among several suggested alternatives or simply ignore the teaching. The teaching against contraception may not be quite infallible, but it sure is certain enough to demand obedience.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"How?" Are you asking me how I think Catholic theology might determine where the extra person comes from when a fertilized egg ("individual human being") ends up producing two persons? I'm sure I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem much more esoteric than a lot of other things the Church has very firm opinions of.
You likely think of theology as a near arbitrary selection of proposition. Theology instead is a highly connected logical web anchored in a largely fixed set of fundamental beliefs (the "deposit of faith") and to some extent the usual knowledge of the world. One hence can recognize that something probably is outside of the reach of this theological web, simply because the argumentative "links" to get there appear non-existent.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As to why - well, it is rather an obvious question to ask, isn't it? You've often likened theologians to scientists - but maybe not so much in the curiosity department, I guess.
My point was that this is not a pressing moral issue, not that this is not interesting as such.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's hiding a leap between two assertions where the second doesn't follow from the first.
A full discussion of Catholic ecclesiology is off-topic here. Suffice to say that in my opinion the Church has the power to "bind and loosen" the faithful, with full eternal consequences. And Christ has not left her alone with this awesome power of deciding what is right by might, but has sent her the Holy Spirit to prevent major disasters.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If one is going to insist the moment of ensoulment is when the sperm and the egg have their first tango, then the question of twinning is either a reductio, or at the very least needs to be accounted for.
As mentioned, twining does not represent a significant challenge at all. The claim is that the fertilized egg must be considered morally as a human being, not that the only way in which a new human being can come to be is the fertilization of an egg.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Likewise the existence of human genetic chimeras (where one human person results from two fertilized eggs).
Again, why would this represent the slightest difficulty? It is an unusual death to have one's cells fused with that of another, but people die in all sort of strange ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is the quite specific Romans 12 guideline "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" which seems to be well followed by what she describes as a "social compact". I think it is more than just a social compact. It looks to me to be following Christian understandings on faith and morals. How do the Catholic contributors see that?
Interesting interpretation. I think though that in the context of Romans 12 this is much more aimed at the individual, and is more about living humbly than about instituting a preferred social order. If it is not possible, because of God, to keep the peace, then one must disturb it. Neither the prophets nor Christ lived a life of appeasement.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The RCC, on the other hand, seeks to force everyone it has any kind of power over - non-RCC employees, in this case - to obey its strictures.
I'm not particularly following the health care side of things. It is entirely possible that the US RCC has a terrible position on this. Or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
