|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Humanae Vitae - monstrous hubris
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So go ahead, show your sources. Where was the Church teaching geocentrism as a truth of faith for 1800 years? This is just stupid.
So they persecuted this guy, and many others, over things that weren't actually truths of the faith? And this is supposed to make them look GOOD? They're a bunch of vindictive assholes.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Theologians have zero teaching authority in the RCC.
Then why the fuck did they ask them, especially if they were intending to ignore them anyway if they came up with the "wrong" answer? Indeed, why have theologians at all, especially if you're prepared to go against them even when they vote 9-to-1? If they had voted the other way, you can be sure the pope would have displayed their vote as showing something about the church and her teachings. But if he disagrees with them, then their vote DOESN'T show something about the church and her teachings. It's a sham. It's a show. It's theology theatre.
quote:
This was in the mode of a king asking advisors,
This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
[ 13. June 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a behavioural issue, it will never go away, quite simply because it is tied to the most common motivator of human sin, concupiscence. Consider adultery: there is not doubt that the Church teaches that this is wrong and sinful, and there is also no doubt that many people, including many faithful, will do it anyway.
Poor comparison, because it isn't concupiscence. Married Catholics use birth control despite the teachings of their church because they have rationally arrived at the conclusion that the church blew the call. Catholics don't take the same attitude toward adultery; there aren't a whole lot of otherwise faithful Catholics in the midst of adulterous affairs who sat down and thought about it and decided the church got it wrong when it said adultery is a sin.
It's not concupiscence. People use methods of birth control that aren't sanctioned by the church because they are straightforward and reliable. It's a rational choice.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Would it be possible for there to be something the RCC has always said, having to do with an important piece of moral teaching -- yet for the RCC to come to believe that the teaching they had always taught was wrong? Or, less drastically, to at least consider whether the teaching they had always taught was wrong?
No, that would not be possible. In theory. In practice, there is generally quite a bit of wiggle room concerning just what has been "always" said, and what is "important". But there is an actual point of no return there somewhere. Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or does "we are protected by the Holy Spirit against error" in these circumstances mean that once the first two conditions are fulfilled, (being something always said by the RCC, and having to do with an important piece of moral teching) mean that all the RCC's reasoning is only applied to proving that the doctrine is right?
Apologetics would mostly concentrate on that. Heresy as well, from the other side. Actual RCC reasoning (theological inquiry) would simply move on to some other, not yet settled domain.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Poor comparison, because it isn't concupiscence. Married Catholics use birth control despite the teachings of their church because they have rationally arrived at the conclusion that the church blew the call. Catholics don't take the same attitude toward adultery; there aren't a whole lot of otherwise faithful Catholics in the midst of adulterous affairs who sat down and thought about it and decided the church got it wrong when it said adultery is a sin. It's not concupiscence. People use methods of birth control that aren't sanctioned by the church because they are straightforward and reliable. It's a rational choice.
That people find adultery harder to rationalise than contraception has other reasons. The main difference is simply that contraception is usually a "victimless crime", whereas adultery usually isn't. In adultery, the cheated spouse is the advocate of the Church's morals, if virtually (i.e., the adulterers will fear being discovered). He or she will complain loudly about the injustice, sinfulness, etc. In contraception, it's pretty much a pure test of the convictions of the couple. By and large, no outsider will ever challenge them. And even if somebody did, he would still not challenge as a direct victim but for a moral principle. That sort of things simply does not have the same psychological bite. In contraception, the rationalisation is obvious: "we are ok with it, so it must be ok." In adultery, the victim won't let the adulterers do that.
As far as the underlying motivations go, concupiscence typically plays a significant role in both of them. But fair enough, there can be other motivations, for both of them.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So they persecuted this guy, and many others, over things that weren't actually truths of the faith? And this is supposed to make them look GOOD? They're a bunch of vindictive assholes.
No, this is not supposed to make them look good. It shows that the principles underlying the Church remained sound there, even if the actions of some of her representatives were plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then why the fuck did they ask them, especially if they were intending to ignore them anyway if they came up with the "wrong" answer? Indeed, why have theologians at all, especially if you're prepared to go against them even when they vote 9-to-1? If they had voted the other way, you can be sure the pope would have displayed their vote as showing something about the church and her teachings. But if he disagrees with them, then their vote DOESN'T show something about the church and her teachings. It's a sham. It's a show. It's theology theatre.
Once more, there was apparently no intention originally to publish any of these findings anyhow. So you are simply wrong about the motivations. If you would have read the link that I have provided (here it is again), then you would have read that
quote:
... the new documents shows that the Pope took both sides of the issue seriously, and gave advocates of artificial contraception every chance to make their case. ... Grisez noted that the Pope, rather than ignoring the pro-contraception arguments, was legitimately interested in considering the questions raised by new methods. “He was perfectly happy to have a lot of people on the commission who thought that change was possible. He wanted to see what kind of case they could make for that view.” ... Some proponents of a change in teaching ... initially argued that the contraceptive pill was different from older methods, and could be accepted without contradicting prior teaching. Pope Paul encouraged the commission to pursue this line of inquiry – not expecting that the commission's work, after being leaked to the public, would be set on the same plane as his judgment. ... “When the documents were leaked in 1967, Paul VI was extremely upset about it. He sent a letter to all the bishops and cardinals who were on the commission, about the documents. It wasn't what he had in mind at all.” In the end, the majority of commission members actually lost interest in attempting to argue that contraceptive pills could be squared with “Casti Connubii.” Instead, they simply advocated the acceptance of contraception, without attempting to reconcile this prospect with the previous teaching of the Church.
So basically, the pro-contracpetion camp tried to pull a publicity stunt and furthermore abandoned their attempt to argue that the new contraceptive methods allowed for new moral judgements, instead basically requiring a full reversal.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
That's unlikely.
--------------------
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
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
...I think that stage has come and gone.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This says more than you realize about the office of the Pope.
That's unlikely.
That you were intentionally slagging the pope seems quite unlikely. I have to go with my interpretation, that you didn't realize you were slagging the pope.
Again I ask, if the Pope wasn't prepared to go with the findings of the committee, why did he call the committee? You latch on to the "made public" part of what I said and ignore the rest.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
IngoB,
What would you think if people outside a religious context acted in this way ? If the group of people who run a university or a hospital or a local authority made a decision that was transparently in the interests of preserving their own prestige and authority instead of in the interests of the people they were supposed to be leading ? Would you think it despicable ? An abuse of power ? The very opposite of the servant-leadership represented by Jesus who washed the feet of his disciples ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple doesn't want another child but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Catholics advocate breast feeding as a part of NFP
Yes - combined with, as your quote explicitly states, examination of cervical mucus. Not as a contraceptive in itself.
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple doesn't want another child but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
They aren't compliant with the Church's teaching anymore than a couple using artificial methods of contraception. What makes you think they are?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
How are they not compliant with the church's teaching? (Genuinely puzzled.)
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
How are they not compliant with the church's teaching? (Genuinely puzzled.)
Me too.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
HV16: "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. "
The "If" in HV is not consonent with the intention expressed in the case proposed..
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So Catholic couples really are supposed to go on pumping out babies as long as they're both alive and fertile.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Not Catholics, but a peculiar fringe Protestant group, prayed over the daughter of one of my landladies, who had just had a terrible delivery and was told by her doctor that she must never become pregnant again, that she should have a quiverful of children. The choice the doctor made clear was between no pregnancy or death.
In that sort of case, surely counting, temperatures and mucus leading to abstention in the fertile period would not be enough? How would Catholicism deal with the situation?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Trisagion, OK, let's edit seekingsister's question lightly to comply with at least the first part of your quote from HV:
quote:
seekingsister's question, lightly edited (I've italicized the change):
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple has well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
Can you respond to this version of the question?
[ 14. June 2014, 00:14: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Would it be possible for there to be something the RCC has always said, having to do with an important piece of moral teaching -- yet for the RCC to come to believe that the teaching they had always taught was wrong? Or, less drastically, to at least consider whether the teaching they had always taught was wrong?
No, that would not be possible. In theory. In practice, there is generally quite a bit of wiggle room concerning just what has been "always" said, and what is "important". But there is an actual point of no return there somewhere. Basically, at some stage any further wiggling would come over as blatant sophistry, which would put in doubt the believability of the whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Or does "we are protected by the Holy Spirit against error" in these circumstances mean that once the first two conditions are fulfilled, (being something always said by the RCC, and having to do with an important piece of moral teching) mean that all the RCC's reasoning is only applied to proving that the doctrine is right?
Apologetics would mostly concentrate on that. Heresy as well, from the other side. Actual RCC reasoning (theological inquiry) would simply move on to some other, not yet settled domain.
Let me see if I am understanding this. Suppose we have an issue where it's generally agreed that the church has always said X, and that X is an important piece of moral teaching.
Suppose I'm the Pope and I start to think about X, and realize that no amount of reasoning leads X to make any sense to me, and in fact all the reasoning put forwards seems to me to point to not-X. I consult with my bishops, and they all agree that not-X makes much more sense. Even the documented statements put forwards by past Popes and bishops as being self-evidently true in support of X, all seem to us to much more sensibly make the case for not-X. (I'm phrasing this as the Pope and all the bishops, to eliminate the response that the average faithful aren't qualified to think about or make pronouncements on these things. I understood you to say earlier that it's the Pope and bishops who are authorized to make pronouncements.)
But let us say that we, the Pope and all the bishops, also all agree that the church has always taught X, and the area Y that X is about is an important moral domain.
Are we to all conclude, Popes and bishops together, that this is a simply a mystery that we cannot comprehend? The Holy Spirit has guaranteed that the church cannot make an error in matters where the church has always so far said the same thing that concern important pieces of moral teaching... so we assert that X is correct, and the correctness is proven because the Holy Spirit would not have allowed the church to stand behind a mistaken teaching for all these centuries in an important area of moral teaching?
That is, given (A) the church has always taught X and (B) X is about an area of important moral teaching, then if A and B are proved, that means X is proved also (because of the guarantee of the Holy Spirit)? (I think this is an adequate reduction of the question at the end of the previous paragraph, but let me know if you don't agree that this as an equivalent formulation.)
I'm not trying to have a poke at RC teaching here. I'm trying to understand what you have said.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Trisagion, OK, let's edit seekingsister's question lightly to comply with at least the first part of your quote from HV:
quote:
seekingsister's question, lightly edited (I've italicized the change):
So here is the part I don't understand.
An RC couple has well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances but wants to comply with church teaching. So they go out and buy a thermometer, a fertility monitor, and download an app to track the woman's cycle. And then during her fertile week they don't share any conjugal love - because they are so faithful that any other activities that might, um, waste potential human seed is also a no-no.
How is this couple more compliant with God's desire for each sex act to be procreative - which as discussed is not God's plan at all given the way the menstrual cycle works - than one that uses condoms?
It's the picture of letter rather than spirit of the law. Either God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex in which case resisting urges during the most fertile period is sinful. Surely the sexual desire is the natural thing, not the temperature charting. Or else God is OK with us avoiding pregnancy in which case we can use all of the tools available to us.
Can you respond to this version of the question?
Yes, of course - although Pope Paul VI spells it our pretty clearly.
The mistakes are in the final paragraph. They are, I think:
1. It is not true to say "God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex". It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life. An act - abstinence - which is, by definition, not an act of sexual intercourse, cannot be open to the transmission of life;
2. Resisting the urge to have sex would only be sinful if we could say that that particular urge at that particular moment represented the will of God, rather than an expression of a natural appetite. I don't see how - absent divine revelation - we could know that. Furthermore, it may well be an urge arising from an appetite which has been damaged by the effects of sin, original and personal;
3. Human beings are rational creatures, whose appetites are be subject to our reason and will. If that reason gives us cause to believe that the demands of responsible parenthood suggest that it would, by our judgement, be in opportune for us to have another child at a particular time, then it is perfectly proper for us to subject our sexual urges to the exercise of our will and to abstain from indulging them. Such abstinence cannot possibly be sinful, unless the sexual urge in a particular instance is understood to be an expression of divine will, rather than, as I say in 1 above, an expression of a natural appetite.
--------------------
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:
1. It is not true to say "God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex". It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life.
I've pointed out before that there's a glaring problem with this proposition, which is that everybody knows women are only fertile for a few days at a particular point in the menstrual cycle. And I'm pretty sure God knows it too, seeing as how He designed the system.
Yet Catholic doctrine has never been, as far as I'm aware, that you may only have intercourse during the relevant period.
In short, Catholics can avoid any prospect of the transmission of life by having sexual intercourse at the times of the month in which there is no egg in a position to be fertilised.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life. An act - abstinence - which is, by definition, not an act of sexual intercourse, cannot be open to the transmission of life;
Taken literally, this would seem to imply that:
a) if scientists ever succeed in developing NFP methods to the point where they are 100% reliable, then you will no longer consider such methods morally acceptable because they will constitute acts of sex that are not open to the possibility of conception
b) a contraceptive pill that is less-than-100% reliable is OK because its use is open to the possibility...
Somehow I doubt that this is really your position.
I used to be a civil servant. I've seen instances where middle-ranking civil servants have to try to give a defensible and meaningful interpretation to a form of words that has been agreed at a higher-level meeting. I'm reminded of that experience here.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
... 3. Human beings are rational creatures, whose appetites are be subject to our reason and will. If that reason gives us cause to believe that the demands of responsible parenthood suggest that it would, by our judgement, be in opportune for us to have another child at a particular time ...
So what if the rational, responsible humans' judgment leads them to decide they should not have more children? Or, if is allowed to space births, how about spacing them, oh, say, 40 years apart?
And as for "the Holy Spirit wouldn't have let us get it wrong"? Really? That's the argument? That despite the fact that we're all disobedient, rebellious, sinful humans, church leaders throughout history always knew and did exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
And since I'm agreeing with everything Russ wrote, we must both be right, because it happens so rarely ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
--------------------
"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
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The mistakes are in the final paragraph. They are, I think:
1. It is not true to say "God wants us to potentially conceive every single time we have sex". It would be more accurate to say that each act of sexual intercourse should be open to the transmission of life. An act - abstinence - which is, by definition, not an act of sexual intercourse, cannot be open to the transmission of life;
Isn't this saying that man can develop a contraceptive device/medication/technique more powerful than God?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And as for "the Holy Spirit wouldn't have let us get it wrong"? Really? That's the argument? That despite the fact that we're all disobedient, rebellious, sinful humans, church leaders throughout history always knew and did exactly what the Holy Spirit wanted?
That church leaders always knew and did what the Holy Spirit wanted is not the claim. They're not claiming that church leaders never make mistakes; I daresay Trisagion, IngoB and Triple Tiara can recite the sins of the Renaissance popes in greater detail than you or I.
It's a narrower claim: that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and does not allow it to stray into error on doctrinal issues.
What I'm wondering right now is this: is it not possible that the Catholic Church for a time ignores the leading of the Holy Spirit and then later is recalled to faithfulness? What exactly was the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit prior to the Counter Reformation? Didn't the church at that point essentially say they'd been getting some pretty important things wrong for quite a while? Or were the things that had to be corrected more accurately considered practices and disciplines rather than doctrine?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What counts as "doctrine" (and therefore incontrovertible) seems to vary depending on whether or not they need to controvert it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Paul VI's actions over HV have been called "The time the Pope acted as a Protestant", in that he preferred his private judgement over the views of the Church (as expressed by the majority of the Commission). If anyone is really interested I will wrack my brains to try to find the source of the quote.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Trisagion, thanks for your reply. I have more questions, but I'm feeling my way as I go in understanding this, so let me just start with one aspect: what does "open to the transmission of life" mean? And, is this a physical condition, a mental condition, both together, something else, ..?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So shouldn't sex stop in marriage after the menopause?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or is it an act of faith? You know, there might be a miraculous conception?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or is it an act of faith? You know, there might be a miraculous conception?
A bit like Abraham and Sarah you mean?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, you've GOT to keep trying even though it's physically impossible. One way or the other ... It's an auto-da-fé.
It IS related, tangentially, I came across a great Dave Allen quote: The Church offers women either perpetual virginity (with or without pregnancy) or perpetual pregnancy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Martin, I think you're onto something. The same thought as crossed my mind before, actually.
I figure I can keep having gay sex knowing that God could make one of the men pregnant if he really wanted to.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Martin, I think you're onto something. The same thought as crossed my mind before, actually.
I figure I can keep having gay sex knowing that God could make one of the men pregnant if he really wanted to.
Eh...One response to Rome is this:
Children in Syria are dying, the planet is warming up, and countries are in economic crisis.
Given this, why exactly would God care particularly about the details of our sex lives?
Now I believe that whenever there is abuse in any situation, and that includes sexual situations, that God is rightly angered/outraged whenever his beloved creatures are violated or harmed.
So, in that sense, yes I do think God cares about our intimate lives.
However, assuming that the relationship is loving and consensual, why would God care what a couple does in the bed room?
[ 16. June 2014, 03:11: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Children in Syria are dying, the planet is warming up, and countries are in economic crisis.
Given this, why exactly would God care particularly about the details of our sex lives?
Because that's a fundamentally stupid argument, which I've labelled a fundamentally stupid argument every time it's turned up on the Ship in whatever form.
Telling someone - whether it's another Shipmate or God - that they're not allowed to care about a given issue unless they also care about some other totally separate issue that we've decided is 'more important' is just totally false. Why should everybody have the same list of priorities? Why should I comply with your decisions about what's really important? Why should God?
And who said there was some kind of limit as to the number of things one was allowed to care about? That's another totally fallacious notion. Especially for God. As if God can't care about our sex lives because all of his care was 'used up' dealing with Syria, global warming and the GFC.
--------------------
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
ADDEDUM: Or perhaps you'd like me to close the TICTH thread? I mean, why should we allow anyone to express their trivial little complaints?
How about the relatives thread? I mean, what's one exasperating parent compared to massacres in Iraq?
This is where developing ranking systems of issues/pain/moral outrage takes you.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yet Catholic doctrine has never been, as far as I'm aware, that you may only have intercourse during the relevant period.
In short, Catholics can avoid any prospect of the transmission of life by having sexual intercourse at the times of the month in which there is no egg in a position to be fertilised.
Exactly - which means that God does not have a problem with sex that is not procreative. Why God all of a sudden cares that you are using a small bit of latex as opposed to sleeping in separate bedrooms to avoid having a child, I honestly cannot even begin to understand. If anything contraception allows married couples to bond more closely physically even at times when they need to space pregnancies for legitimate reasons.
A more consistent position is one I heard about from the Orthodox Jews. Married couples avoid any physical contact at all for a period of around 13-14 days coinciding with menses. So that the rest of the month that they do have together is timed to align nearly perfectly with ovulation. They are basically limiting sexual activity to the most fertile period.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The church is a "she" IngoB?
Well that is some news to me
It is run by old men
most of them round the bend
So it looks a lot more like a "he"
Of course the Roman Catholic church is a she.
The Roman Catholic church is being fucked over on a daily basis by a number of those "old men most (at least some) of them round the bend".
You wouldn't want to accuse them of being homosexuals, would you?
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So shouldn't sex stop in marriage after the menopause?
Regardless of whether the Roman Catholic church actually teaches that, I've come across several fellow R.C.'s who actually preach -and presumably practice- that.
Although the Roman Catholic church invariably stops just short of declaring sex an outright sin, or at best a necessary evil, it manages to create a sense of just that in far too many of the faithful, with disastrous results.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I know of an RC priest who asks incredibly invasive questions of a couple enquiring about a wedding if the bride could be described as of mature years. I'm told that he will move heaven and earth not to take weddings where the bride is over 50...
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I know the RCC doesn't care very much about what the Bible says but it does clearly state that married people should enjoy each other sexually and not deny conjugal rights to one another. Apparently someone in the early church noticed that a warm sex life helps keep couples together, so it makes sense to me that abstinence as birth control isn't really ideal.
When I first heard that the RCC didn't allow use of the birth control pill, it was explained to me by my Catholic friend that it "interfered with God's plan." I wonder if the priests just endure their headaches because an aspirin would interfere with God's plan.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Exactly - which means that God does not have a problem with sex that is not procreative. Why God all of a sudden cares that you are using a small bit of latex as opposed to sleeping in separate bedrooms to avoid having a child, I honestly cannot even begin to understand.
I think you’re conflating two different but related moral issues here, and therefore don’t get what the Catholics are saying. I’m sure you’ll disagree with it when you do understand it (I certainly disagree with it) but I think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position at the moment.
The first issue is to do with the rightness or wrongness of having sex on an particular occasion.
On that, there is no obligation on a Catholic couple either to have sex or abstain TODAY. Both choices are allowed, and neither is sinful. Suppose a couple had access to scientific data that told them that conception on Monday was relatively likely, but on Friday it was highly unlikely, then they could legitimately decide that, if they were trying to get pregnant, they’d sleep together Monday but not Friday, whereas if they didn’t want to, they’d do it on Friday but not Monday.
What the RCC says they cannot do is separate Friday-sex with Friday-chance-of conception, or Monday-sex with Monday-chance. For sex to be allowed, they have to be open to the chance of procreation appertaining to that particular act of intercourse. It doesn’t matter if the natural chance is effectively zero, sex is lawful if they accept that almost-zero chance. What they can’t do is break the link, and have sex with the intention of frustrating the chance of conception that naturally applies.
The second issue is about the purpose of marriage. For the RCC, it is part of the deal that a married couple should have a sexual relationship which they accept may lead to them having children. Therefore deciding not to have children frustrates the purpose of marriage. This does not require that every act of intercourse be intended to procreate, but that the marriage relationship as a totality be accepted as procreative. It’s OK to decide not to want children right now, and to act on that decision, but not OK to decide not to have children at all.
The confusion is that people are using phrases like ‘open to procreation’ or ‘open to the transmission of life’ for both issues. When considering a specific instance of sex, it is open to procreation if the parties are taking, and not seeking to avoid, the natural chance of conception occurring. Intention to procreate isn’t required. They may believe on good evidence that they are infertile at that time, or even be hoping like mad that they are, but the act is still ‘open to procreation’ if they haven’t deliberately sought to avoid what chance there is. When considering a marriage relationship, intention does matter, and the marriage itself is open to the transmission of life if the parties intent to accept the chance of children arriving in consequence of their sexual relations. It is not necessary to intend every sexual act to result in a baby.
The issues are separate because a couple could offend against either principle but not the other: it would be possible to use only inherently lawful NFP methods, while ‘wrongly’ intending the marriage as a whole not to be procreative, OR to ‘wrongly’ break the rule against artificial contraception many times during a marriage entered into with the intention of having children.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know of an RC priest who asks incredibly invasive questions of a couple enquiring about a wedding if the bride could be described as of mature years. I'm told that he will move heaven and earth not to take weddings where the bride is over 50...
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
Well he at least has an intellectually consistent position.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I came across a great Dave Allen quote: The Church offers women either perpetual virginity (with or without pregnancy) or perpetual pregnancy.
It's a great quote. But the 3rd option, as detailed by Trisagion above, is that married couples have rather less sex, that we submit our passions to our rational brains. That strikes me as miserly to say the least (personally speaking, I like sex very much, and it's also been a major part of maintaining my remaining cheerfulness over the recent couple of years, which have been very tough indeed). But it's consistent at least.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He told a friend's son in marriage preparation (!) that sex for enjoyment was a sin, and that one should keep God at the forefront of one's mind during 'the act'. Added in that since FS was marrying a non-catholic he should resist all attempts by her to lure him in 'hedonistic' sex - likened his future bride to Eve.
When I was at school there were some boys who'd have burst the football rather than let anyone else play with it, if they couldn't.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
this is nothing more than the sunk costs fallacy. It is not an argument from pure reason - it's one from pure pride.
And the argument is quite literally "We are right because we have said this is right."
I think you’re misreading the minority report here. There are other arguments presented against contraception than that.
If you look, for instance, at the repeated attempt to portray the “malice” of contraception as akin to homicide, your interpretation seems implausible. Those are NOT the words of someone cynically advising the Church to continue to teach falsehood, because it would be too costly to start to teach the truth. They are the words of someone who is BATSHIT INSANE. They are the words of someone who, morally speaking, does not know his arse from a hole in the ground.
You don’t, unfortunately, need to look very hard to find a reason why someone who thinks condoms are on the same moral scale as murder should look to the established teachings of the Church as the definitive statement of ethics. Of course he must look to some institutional authority for moral insights and reasoning, because he so clearly has none of his own.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I meant to add to my post above. My understanding of the Catholic faith is limited and almost entirely comprised of reading what IngoB, TT & Trisagion have written on these boards since I started lurking. But I haven't seen anything which would suggest that God wanted me to be happy
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EloiseA
Shipmate
# 18029
|
Posted
Jemima, I'm not sure God's key concern is for our happiness in this earthly life. But I can hear the love of God and trust in what His will may be for us in posts by IngoB, Triple Tiara and Trisagion.
--------------------
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O'Connnor
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's a fucking funny idea of "love" that doesn't want the person it "loves" to be happy.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not necessarily: I'm sure my three-year old would be very happy if I gave him a bag of sweets every day, but it wouldn't be very loving of me to do it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
By the lights of the RCC, if you think that the RCC has erred fundamentally and persistently in her teachings of faith and morals, then she is a false Church and should be abandoned. You can be a RC if, and only if, you believe that the RCC has kept the fundamentals of Christian faith and morals safe and sound throughout the centuries.
I love it when the RCC gives me a definitive answer on something that's been on my mind - well, on and off - for years. I'll sleep better in my frail old age now.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not necessarily: I'm sure my three-year old would be very happy if I gave him a bag of sweets every day, but it wouldn't be very loving of me to do it.
So you think that it's detrimental to the health of a married couple to have sex every day or even once a week, which would be often enough to keep that perpetual pregnancy thing going?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
This priest is under 40 and went to the English College in Rome after being educated at a well-known boarding school run by a monastic order so is either a very rare aberration or is reflecting what he has learned during his formative years in RC institutions.
Sadly, at least here in The Netherlands, he is not a very rare aberration but pretty standard for a newly consecrated priest.
Such are the times that intelligent well-balanced personalities apparently are rarely called to the priesthood nowadays.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
