Leave a comment below!
Something "to crew on"? jesus, Paul.
Oops.
By the way, read the articles and liked them.
Interesting articles. First regarding the Pope, I view him as a man of contradictions. He was a champion of civil rights in many respects. However, he had the immediate effect upon becoming the pontiff of ending the reform process begun by vatican II. Instead, the Catholic Church has been left in a situation of total inflexibility, without even the ability to discuss many issues in a meaningful way within the church. Some of the issues that have been decided in this manner, such as birth control, have led to a general disillusionment with the Catholic church. It appears as though this has led to a lack of communication between the Hierarchy and the local communities. This is perhaps best seen in the woefully inadequate response to the child molestation problem in the church. It appears as though, even today, this problem is not taken seriously. Indeed, perhaps the worst of the members of the clergy involved in this situation, Cardinal Bernard Law, is still in a position of honor within the church. It is indeed unfortunate that this pontiff, who contributed so much to the poor and needy around the world will have this stain on his legacy.
Regarding the second article, I agree that the legislature failed to address the issue of abortion after it was ruled upon by the supreme court. However, I feel it is the responsibility of the legislature to deal with incidents of 'judicial activism.' They refuse to deal with issues like this both from electoral cowardice, as well as from cold political calculation. They know that they will not be blamed for judges being forced to interpret unclear law. Therefore, it is a convenient target to orient supporters against.
Some of the issues that have been decided in this manner, such as birth control, have led to a general disillusionment with the Catholic church.
Birth control isn't an "issue to be decided". It is a moral evil, always and everywhere. Expecting the Church to say that birth control is OK is like expecting the Church to declare murder and theft OK. If a Pope attempted to declare ex cathedra that theft is no longer immoral he would not be making theft moral; he would be automatically excommunicating himself.
Maybe lots of people will leave the Church if it doesn't declare that theft is OK. Maybe lots of people will leave the Church if it doesn't declare that the sky is red.
Objective reality: deal with it.
Chris P:
Re: the second article, couldn't agree more. It seems the courts are the place for the legislature (and executive) to hand off touchy issues.
As for the Church being inflexible on certain "issues", as Zippy points out, the Church's purpose is not to be popular - it is to declare the truth (wrt the immorality of birth control, a truth agreed upon by all Christians for 1,900 years). If it costs membership, so be it - wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last.
It's worth noting that (1) before the 1927 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, virtually every major Christian denomination opposed birth control as fiercely as the RCC does today; and (2) before the Supreme Court's 1965 Griswold decision (the infamous "emanations and penumbras" opinion), even a state like Connecticut (Connecticut!) proscribed birth control.
These are, to my mind, astonishing facts. We can thus, symbolically at least, trace the corruption and decay of both mainstream Protestantism and American jurisprudence to the embrace of birth control.
Zippy,
“Expecting the Church to say that birth control is OK is like expecting the Church to declare murder and theft OK”
I think you do exaggerate a bit. After all, there are quite a few Catholics who do expect and hope that eventually the Church will change its position on birth control. On the other hand one would have to search insane asylums for someone expecting and hoping the Church will say yes to murder and theft one day.
I agree that it is possible to view both birth control and murder as immoral, but while the first is succumbing to the “weakness of the flesh” the latter is doing evil. Not a small difference.
And, of course, I agree with you and c matt that the Church's purpose is not to be popular, but to declare the truth.
I agree that it is possible to view both birth control and murder as immoral, but while the first is succumbing to the “weakness of the flesh” the latter is doing evil.
The supposed categorical distinction is false. An act of using birth control is an evil act, no less categorically so than an act of murder, although a murder may (or may not) be viewed as more heinous. And Catholics can hope that the Church will adopt an objectively false view of sexual morality all they want without changing the fact that using birth control is objectively evil. People hope for all sorts of counterfactual things, but wishful thinking does not bring the counterfactual any closer to being true.
Someone who hopes that the Church will change its position on birth control is hoping that the Church will adopt an objectively false moral position.
I have further commented on this on my blog, where I explore the notion that an odd sort of ultramontanist moral relativism underlies the tendency to think that something is right or wrong because the Church says so as opposed to the Church having the authority to tell us what is, as an objective matter, right and wrong.
The link isn't working, Zippy.
Zippy,
“The supposed categorical distinction is false. An act of using birth control is an evil act, no less categorically so than an act of murder…”
I think that man, being only a man, lives “not by categories alone” but, to even greater extent, “by degree(s).”
So even if the Church should categorize murder and (use of) contraceptives as evil she at the same time recognizes the difference of degree of evil inherent in these two acts. That’s why one can quite reasonably expect continual absolution for his/her use of contraceptives while it may be too optimistic to count on absolution after, once again, confessing a new murder.
Ah, haloscan outsmarted me. I'll put the URL in here directly:
http://
zippycatholic.blogspot.co...relativism.html
T. Hanski wrote:
That’s why one can quite reasonably expect continual absolution for his/her use of contraceptives while it may be too optimistic to count on absolution after, once again, confessing a new murder.
Nonsense. Without firm purpose of amendment -- that is, unless the penitent has a firm internal intention to cease sinning in the way confessed -- an absolution is invalid. This is equally the case with a murder or a contracepted sex act.
Both Hanski and Zippy are right, except for Mr. Hanski's presumption that "one can quite reasonably expect continual absolution for his/her use of contraceptives." Actually, I believe that for the sacrament of confession to be properly entered into, one must express contrition for the wrongdoing and an intention not to repeat it. So it seems a priest offering continual absolution is actually abusing the sacrament's purpose. Zippy can set me straight if I'm wrong.
Paul, I've recited those "astonishing facts" to students often over the years. I wish more of them were as astonished as you.
So it seems a priest offering continual absolution is actually abusing the sacrament's purpose.
Or, strictly speaking, is offering the sacrament invalidly (and therefore inefficaciously). In order to be valid the sacrament would have to be repeated with the proper intentions. In a very real sense it never took place at all, it merely looked like it took place.
Zippy can set me straight if I'm wrong.
I doubt very much that I can set Professor Luse straight on much of anything!
"...for the sacrament of confession to be properly entered into, one must express contrition for the wrongdoing and an intention not to repeat it. "
What one expresses and intents during the confession is one thing. One may be, and ususally is, perfectly honest in one’s contrition for the past sins yet quite aware that he will yield to them again tomorrow. Just ask St. Paul.
A priest knows that the spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak. And he would be a fool if he believed that, except in extremely few cases, a person would not resume his contracepted sex after the absolution. But he would be a double fool and a dangerous one if he would grant continuous absolution to a murderer.
As for myself, I would rather live and hope for God’s, if not Zippy’s, mercy despite invalid absolution for contracepted sex than despite invalid absolution for murder.
T. Hanski:
I have a hard time understanding why there would be such a temptation towards contracepted sex, unless it be in the context of fornication, which is surely a powerful temptation. That is, why should contraception specifically, once recognized as evil, still tempt people?
In other words, once, say, a loving, God-fearing man and wife come to the decision that birth control is, indeed, a sin, it does to seem to me that the temptation to return to their prior sinful practice would be so great.
Probably instead, they would simply end up with a large family.
This concept of "continual absolution" is a novelty with no place or precedent in Catholic sacramental theology. A confessor would not withold absolution from either a murderer or a contraceptor who exhibited imperfect contrition and firm purpose of amendment; and in either case if the penitent is attempting to "fool" the confessor about the firm purpose of amendment the sacrament is invalid. The confessor's personal wisdom or foolishness (or sinfulness or state of grace, for that matter) don't come into the sacrament; it isn't about him.
T. Hanski is attempting to draw a distinction which does not, in objective fact, exist. There is a distinction between mortal and venial sin, but both murder and contraception are mortal sins so that distinction does not apply here.
Furthermore, the actual way the sacrament works is not in fact merciless as he implies. He implies that a murderer may not or should not have access to the forgiving graces of the confessional in the same way that a contraceptor has. Which position is the more merciless?
Paul Cella,
“Probably instead, they would simply end up with a large family.”
Oh, I agree. But this may not be what they want, or, even more often, can afford. It is hard to condemn it.
But let’s go back to my original argument with Zippy on matters of category and degree.
OK. I admit your right to shove contracepted sex and murder in the same category. But by doing so you make the category so infinitely inclusive that, for all practical purposes, it ceases to be a category.
If contracepted sex is as evil as murder then, by the same token, murder is as evil (or as bland/innocent) as contracepted sex. Thank God we live in a world where people generally disagree with you on that. And not only because they think that contracepted sex is more fun than murder, but because they KNOW it is a much, much lesser evil.
"He implies that a murderer may not or should not have access to the forgiving graces of the confessional in the same way that a contraceptor has. Which position is the more merciless?"
I can't see where do I imply denying a murderer ACCESS to the forgiving graces of the confessional. But I will try to read my and your comments tomorrow and try to reply. It is 2:20 am where I live and I‘d better go to bed now.
BTW, how do I make italics appear in my text?
Zippy:
"Birth control isn't an "issue to be decided". It is a moral evil, always and everywhere. Expecting the Church to say that birth control is OK is like expecting the Church to declare murder and theft OK. If a Pope attempted to declare ex cathedra that theft is no longer immoral he would not be making theft moral; he would be automatically excommunicating himself."
Is it more or less evil than millions dying of AIDS in africa? This is one concrete example of where this kind of moral equivilance breaks down. The Catholic Church's resistance to condom usage in africa is mystifying to me. The only possible way that I can see it being rationalized is if they decided that sex without intentions for procreation is appropriatly punished by death.
To be honest, it has been a while since I have specifically studied the moral reasoning behind banning birth control. If you could remind me I would appreciate it.
Personally, I think that the reason so many people have been drifting away from the church over the last decade and a half is that they no longer trust it's moral authority. When someone who uses a condom when having sex with their wife is viewed the same as a murderer in the hierarchy of sins, that strikes many as wrong. Also, the sex abuse scandal and the fact that it was covered up for so long has further chipped away at it's moral credibility.
Humanity's view of morality has evolved over time. The church's views at times in the past have been wrong and at times right. I consider that it's accomplishments far outweigh it's sins over it's history, but that does not mean that every moral position it sets forward is a relevation of truth. I realize we will probably never agree on this, but it is still an interesting discussion for me as a lapsed catholic.
c matt:
"Re: the second article, couldn't agree more. It seems the courts are the place for the legislature (and executive) to hand off touchy issues."
It's unfortunate too, because their cowardliness is actually rewarded. Congress critters have been raging about 'activist judges' for a decade now, and you would think they might have actually accomplished something by now if it were in fact much of an issue. Most judges today were appointed by republicans after all, and it hardly seems likely that simply packing the judiciary with conservatives will change their rulings on law as written.
The Judiciary's lack of popularity these days is worrying to me however. It is a very good thing that they are not reliant on public approval for maintaining their jobs, as this sort of anti-judicial fervor could be whipped up by any sort of case. This sentiment is concentrated on the right, but is is also used by the left quite a bit. You don't have to look further than the reaction to the Supreme Courts decision in the 2000 election to see that.
But by doing so you make the category so infinitely inclusive that, for all practical purposes, it ceases to be a category.
I don't think so. It is a venerable category within Christianity since time imemorial: mortal sin.
BTW, how do I make italics appear in my text?
Ah, a simple trick with Haloscan. Different comment systems behave differently, but in Haloscan comments you can just type your italicized text in between HTML italics tags like this: <i>this will show up as italicized text</i>
Is it [birth control] more or less evil than millions dying of AIDS in africa?
One evil plus one evil does not equal one good. And in any case, even if we are being ruthless pragmatists and leaving aside all that pesky moral theology, there seems to be factual problems with the putative comparison:
http://www.spiked-online.com/
art...000000CA993.htm
If you could remind me I would appreciate it.
That isn't usually a short conversation, but one need not be Catholic to understand and assent to it as objective moral truth. In a nutshell, contraception is intrinsically hostile to children.
C Matt:
"As for the Church being inflexible on certain "issues", as Zippy points out, the Church's purpose is not to be popular - it is to declare the truth (wrt the immorality of birth control, a truth agreed upon by all Christians for 1,900 years). If it costs membership, so be it - wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last."
I think these issues are coming from a problem between stated guidelines and enforcement. Many things that priests are not allowed to do these days were either ignored or winked at in the past. The marriage of priets in the middle ages and renaissance period was fairly commonplace, and there are some rather strange stories of the relationships that several popes had.
I think the problem that the church has had over the last century or so, is that as these rules have become more and more inviolate, people that in earlier times would have made very good priets no longer enter the priesthood. The problem has gotten so bad that priests in Ireland have to be imported from Nigeria.
I don't think that it's just costing membership, it is causing severe structural problems. As fewer and fewer young people look to the Church as an avocation, the leadership of the church loses it's connection to it's flock. If there was a discussion about contraception with any sort of give and take, I think that even if the final response was exactly the same there would be less dissent regarding it. This sort of moral authoritarianism only works if you remove society from any discussion of morality.
When someone who uses a condom when having sex with their wife is viewed the same as a murderer in the hierarchy of sins, that strikes many as wrong.
The claim is not that a murder is no worse than a contracepted sex act (although it may be the moral equivalent of an abortaficient contracepted sex act, say one involving the Pill). In the context of the confessional, though, which is the context T. Hanski established and to which I was responding, they are both mortal sins. Either one is literally damnable; either one bars the sinner from receiving Communion until a good confession has been made and absolution received; either one requires a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner before absolution can be valid; etc.
Other contexts may require different evaluations, rankings, and actions, of course.
If there was a discussion about contraception with any sort of give and take, I think that even if the final response was exactly the same there would be less dissent regarding it.
There was plenty if give and take - literally over centuries - in the discussion prior to the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The encyclical was ignored not because of a lack of prior discussion but because people really, really, really don't like the objective fact that contraception is immoral.
The old chestnut goes:
1) I want to have sex with my girlfriend.
2) The Catholic Church says I can't have sex with my girlfriend.
therefore,
3) There is no God. 
None of this is new or unique to the modern age. It is the modern age's conceit that everything is its own discovery.
Interesting article. I think it actually backs up my argument far more than your own, as the author basically says that catholic countries there that have less AIDS patients mainly ensure that is so by ignoring Catholic doctrine on contraception. Hardly the most ringing endorsement for the prohibition.
Zippy:
"One evil plus one evil does not equal one good. And in any case, even if we are being ruthless pragmatists and leaving aside all that pesky moral theology, there seems to be factual problems with the putative comparison:"
So, the fact that many Catholics in Africa ignore doctine is a factual problem? Please, allow me to throw out a quick hypothetical situation.
A man and wife use condoms any time they have sex. The husband has had AIDS for several years, which he recieved during a transfusion. His wife is uninfected. Is he evil for using contraception and should stop, thereby dooming his wife to death? Not to mention that if his wife gets pregnant, he has doomed his child to a short life of pain.
I did not intend to paint the Church as being at fault for the epidemic in Africa. The fact that the Church is opposed to something which has a very real chance of saving lives is of greater concern to me. The lack of tangible effect of this policy is reassuring, but hardly a testament to the rightness of that policy.
Zippy:
"That isn't usually a short conversation, but one need not be Catholic to understand and assent to it as objective moral truth. In a nutshell, contraception is intrinsically hostile to children."
I like long conversations. I would rather have my positions and preconceptions challenged at length, so I might better my own understanding.
Is it the prevention of a possible pregnancy that makes it hostile?
A man and wife use condoms any time they have sex. The husband has had AIDS for several years, which he recieved during a transfusion. His wife is uninfected. Is he evil for using contraception and should stop, thereby dooming his wife to death? Not to mention that if his wife gets pregnant, he has doomed his child to a short life of pain.
Come now, Chris P. You must have anticipated the answer to this one. The proper choice, in these sad circumstances, is for the couple in question to live celebate lives.
Every marriage vow contains the possiblity of a celebacy vow, for disease or injury may destroy the sexual capacity of one or both spouses.
Zippy: I have a strange feeling of deja vu. Do you?
Paul Cella:
"Come now, Chris P. You must have anticipated the answer to this one. The proper choice, in these sad circumstances, is for the couple in question to live celebate lives.
Every marriage vow contains the possiblity of a celebacy vow, for disease or injury may destroy the sexual capacity of one or both spouses."
After reading the encyclical, I see how the reasoning is laid out. I disagree with the conclusion, but it is hardly my place to judge except where it affects others negativly. I would say that it does affect others negatively when it's influence is felt in governmental policy, but I do not think that would be useful to be introduced into this discussion.
Paul Cella:
"Zippy: I have a strange feeling of deja vu. Do you?"
Do I remind you all of someone?
Zippy:
"The claim is not that a murder is no worse than a contracepted sex act (although it may be the moral equivalent of an abortaficient contracepted sex act, say one involving the Pill). In the context of the confessional, though, which is the context T. Hanski established and to which I was responding, they are both mortal sins. Either one is literally damnable; either one bars the sinner from receiving Communion until a good confession has been made and absolution received; either one requires a firm purpose of amendment on the part of the sinner before absolution can be valid; etc."
Ah, gotcha.
Technically, I don't think that the pill when used regularly is an abortificant, as it prevents a womans ovulation. The so called 'morning after pill' on the other hand prevents the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. So, this use of the pill in particular would be an abortificant.
Our host wrote:
Zippy: I have a strange feeling of deja vu. Do you?
Sure do. I wonder if that thread still exists in the deep dark recesses of haloscan, and we can merely point Chris P to it. I'll have a look tomorrow, I'm about ready to call it a nite here.
Chris P. wrote:
I don't think that the pill when used regularly is an abortificant, as it prevents a womans ovulation.
I believe that the ordinary Pill is abortaficient in some number of cases between 20% and 30% of the time, though I have no particular reference handy.
I see that while I slept the debate moved far past the stage I left it. A bit like waking up during a trip on the train and seeing a new unfamiliar landscape in the window. I think that unless the train once again enters the panorama I remember before dozing off I will remain silent contented with listening to the comments of my co-travelers. Fine with me.
you can just type your italicized text in between HTML italics tags
It works!!!
Thank you Zippy.
Zippy,
I just saw this:
This concept of "continual absolution" is a novelty with no place or precedent in Catholic sacramental theology.
Are you saying that I suggest that an absolution received for a particular transgression somehow “takes care” of future sin the way a particular vaccination takes care of future exposures to a particular bacteria?
Well, I admittedly, expressed myself clumsily, but it certainly isn’t what I meant.
What I wanted to say is that an offender who with contrite heart confesses contracepted sex will pretty much always get an absolution. Well, if not always then in the most cases. I am rather sure of that and so are the priest and the offender. And I think you too.
However a chance that a murderer who, for whatever reason, repeatedly kills and then rushes to confession will get an absolution is considerably smaller. I, again, think you would agree.
Now is it possible that this difference somehow reflects the difference with which the Church views these two offences despite their belonging to the same category?
Wouldn’t it be disastrous for all of us AND the Church, if it hadn’t?
Zippy,
I just saw this:
This concept of "continual absolution" is a novelty with no place or precedent in Catholic sacramental theology.
Are you saying that I suggest that an absolution received for a particular transgression somehow “takes care” of future sin the way a particular vaccination takes care of future exposures to a particular bacteria?
Well, I admittedly, expressed myself clumsily, but it certainly isn’t what I meant.
What I wanted to say is that an offender who with contrite heart confesses contracepted sex will pretty much always get an absolution regardless how often he confessed this offence before. Well, if not always then in the most cases. I am rather sure of that and so are the priest and the offender. And I think you too.
However a chance that a murderer who, for whatever reason, repeatedly kills and then rushes to confession will get an absolution is considerably smaller. I, again, think you would agree.
Now is it possible that this difference somehow reflects the difference with which the Church views these two offences despite their belonging to the same category?
Wouldn’t it be disastrous for all of us AND the Church, if it hadn’t?
Oops! I'm sorry for repeated almost identical posting. I was under impression that Haloscan somehow missed the first one, so I sent it again with a small addition. It won't happen again.
To say that contraception and murder are both evil (and mortally so) is not to say they both have the same immediate temporal effects. IN obvious, murder is more visibly disruptive. In other ways, because of its subtle acceptance of procreation as a disease to be avoided, an argument can be made that contraception does more long term damage to a society.
Regardless of which you think is worse, its like arguing about failing to pass the bar with score of 59 vs 29. Either way, you did not pass. If both are mortal sins, the eternal effect would seem the same (save for maybe getting a lower circle of hell).
As for the AIDS/condoms scenarios,
its like supplying people with knives rather than guns to kill each other b/c knife fights are statistically less likely to end in actual death. Condoms only increase the likelihood of promiscuity and risky behavior (now I think I'm "safe" - the gubment says so!!!). The only realistic solution is to change behavior. Condoms may decrease the risk somewhat but at the same time increase the frequency of the behavoir, probably getting little net statistical effect at the cost of mortal sin. Not much of a bargain.
Husband/wife Aids scenario:
It would seem that if you truly loved your spouse, you would not want to subject them to risk of infection with a deadly disease, even if the risk can be reduced, no matter how small. Otherwise, it seems you view your spouse more as an object for sexual gratification than a person whom you love (to the point of giving your life - even your sexual life).
c matt,
I think the first paragraph you address to me, so I will try to answer.
...is not to say they both have the same immediate temporal effects
You said it well: “immediate temporary effects".
Exactly, we are born into, live and die in “immediate temporary” world and as long as we do the immediate temporary effects, or immediate temporary differences, count very much.
And, please, murder is not only “visibly” disruptive. Really, God forbid if it ever becomes “visibly disruptive” only.
Also, I think one is missing the point saying that use of contraceptive is an expression of “acceptance of procreation as a disease to be avoided”. To me, and I have good reason to believe to great majority of sinners, it is about responsibility to be avoided. Which I admit is not a good thing.
…an argument can be made that contraception does more long term damage to a society.
That nobody knows for sure, but I don’t think it should be discussed in this context. Christianity and, I think Judaism, speaks of sin and evil in strictly personal - not collective terms. A man confesses regrets and atones for his own sins only.
If both are mortal sins, the eternal effect would seem the same (save for maybe getting a lower circle of hell).
I don’t know much about Hell, (not yet), but from what I have heard about it once you are in a chance of getting to a lower circle of hell should definitely never be snubbed.
I would only add that a contrite heart is a necessary but not sufficient condition of absolution. A firm purpose of amendment - a commitment to sin no more in that particular way - is also a necessary condition. Now it may well be that a person ultimately fails in that commitment. But it must be there, and it must be genuine.
In my last posting I quoted c matt a few times and each time I enterd the quote between the italizing HTML characters as instructed by Zippy on one of the previous occasions. The quotes were indeed italized on "preview" but not after publishing.
Do I do something wrong?
Also, I didn't add quotation marks, so it is not immediately obvious what is c matt's and what is my own.
I guess this is toward me...
C Matt:
"its like supplying people with knives rather than guns to kill each other b/c knife fights are statistically less likely to end in actual death. Condoms only increase the likelihood of promiscuity and risky behavior (now I think I'm "safe" - the gubment says so!!!). The only realistic solution is to change behavior. Condoms may decrease the risk somewhat but at the same time increase the frequency of the behavoir, probably getting little net statistical effect at the cost of mortal sin. Not much of a bargain."
It might slightly increase the possibility of reckless behavior, but it massively reduces the risks of infection toward others. Promiscuity has always been a part of humanity and always will. Humanity is never going to evolve to the point where there is no promiscuity. It sure as heck hasn't been a long term part of it in the past. Also, I have never heard from any government official of condoms being judged as 100% safe. Any one I have ever heard talk about it have always stressed that Condoms are not perfectly effective, and that abstinence is the only completely effective form of birth control.
The problem with not promoting condoms therefore, is that not only is the risk of disease greater, but that it also does little or nothing to actually deal with the results. Every attempt of pure abstinence style sexual education has demonstrated that they are almost completly ineffective.
Humanity is never going to evolve to the point where there is no promiscuity.
Humanity is never going to evolve to the point where there is no murder either.
Rather than knives versus guns it is more like knives versus bombs. The condom ethic says that human beings will murder each other anyway, but if we encourage them to do it with knives there will be fewer deaths.
In Africa, those countries which have adopted aggressive pure abstinence education programs have far fewer AIDS deaths than those which promote condoms.
Interesting, the italics tags don't work for me now either. The very first line in my post above is a quote; the rest is mine.
The country of Uganda has discovered an AIDS vaccine that is 80% effective:
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...-
effective.html
Strange. I wonder what happened to the html tags?
Zippy:
"Rather than knives versus guns it is more like knives versus bombs. The condom ethic says that human beings will murder each other anyway, but if we encourage them to do it with knives there will be fewer deaths."
This analogy breaks down at this level. It would be more accurate if the more dangerous weapon is something we possess innately, and using a differant weapon would reduce the chance of injury.
If we must look at it through violence, than I can think of one possibly analogy. Imagine a society of bears which uses their claws to fight constantly. This practice is officially frowned upon, but is very common. Instead, various groups start passing out whiffle ball bats to the bears and urging them to use them whenever they want to fight.
Zippy:
" The country of Uganda has discovered an AIDS vaccine that is 80% effective:"
Well, the Uganda government supports ABC, which is what I am pushing for.
For a more in depth look at the situation in Uganda checkout this:
http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm
The problem with analogies is that they are like metaphors: similes all dressed up for the prom.
From a Catholic perspective condom use to fight AIDS is a clear case of doing evil in order that good may come of it. This is never morally permissable. No really. Never.
And as a component of natural law it is something factual that everyone can understand, it isn't a special revelation of the Church. So you don't have to be Catholic to know it as fact.
Instead, various groups start passing out whiffle ball bats to the bears and urging them to use them whenever they want to fight.
But that is the whole point - to get the bears to talk it out, not fight it out - ie, change the injurious behavior, not encourage it by reducing the risk. Claws or bats, guns bombs or knives, you are only reducing the effect, while encouraging the cause.
Bears are bears. They will always fight.
People are people, they will always have sex. It is a genetic imperative. Outside of small, highly disciplined groups, humanity as a whole will never become chaste. I cannot think of any society which has successfully followed this sort of model.
I think that the Abstinence part of ABC is important as well. I just think it's hopeless to think that it will take care of the problem on its own. Especially considering that where it has been tried, it has failed.
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/
...ence.a9173.html
I don't think it's encouraging something to recognize that it is going to happen. No matter what, ignoring the problem or tactics that don't work will have absolutly no effect on the cause, or on the results.
"Outside of small, highly disciplined groups, humanity as a whole will never become chaste. I cannot think of any society which has successfully followed this sort of model."
Actually, publicly sanctioned inchastity is a primarily modern phenomenon. In order to advance it ideologically its exponents have to (counterfactually) equate sex with involuntary functions like eating and breathing.
Fine, public recognition of human sexuality is a relatively recent phenomenon. Like I said, 'successfully followed this(chaste) type of model.' Sure in the past social groups were proponents of such ideas. However, most of those societies never truly followed them. Just looking at the renaissance, there were priests getting married and prostitution is relatively common. The only way that such a practice has worked is in small, scattered groups. When there are only a few families in an area, marriage arrangements becomes very important. Chastity therefore becomes the key because lack of such causes too much pain and dissension in a small group. When there are 3,000 eligible spouses within a mile of you, that is definitely not the case.
In history, when marriage was considered to be a contract of ownership, you're right that inchastity was not sanctioned. However, it was a reality, among princes and paupers alike. It's just that, in the past such lack of chastity was concentrated upon men. Such a double standard is directly tied to the lack of birth control available at the time, and marriage rights in the past. There were smaller communities that did not follow this model of coursel, but most european cultures follow this model.
In order to say that chastity is a natural position, proponents have to ignore thousands of years of people saying one thing and doing another. Just because wasn't sanctioned in the past it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Like you allude to, chastity seems to come into fashion only when necessary - eg, small groups. As the spread of AIDS in countries that DO USE condoms has shown, it seems chastity, once again, needs to be fashionable. All I am doing is observing the facts. Condoms have not stopped AIDS b/c they have not stopped promiscuity. On the contrary, they encourage promiscuity. Hence, AIDS will never be controlled, never mind defeated, until promiscuity is curtailed. Condoms are like soaking a log in water before tossing it into a forrest fire - it will soon become more fuel.
"In order to say that chastity is a natural position, proponents have to ignore thousands of years of people saying one thing and doing another."
This statement is either utter malarky or it must be taken as a refutation of all moral reasoning of any kind, including the sort of moral reasoning which precludes murder, the kind which says the rich ought not exploit the poor, and the kind which says that Jews don't belong in gas chambers en masse. For myself, I come down on the side of saying that the statement is utter malarky.
C Matt:
"Like you allude to, chastity seems to come into fashion only when necessary - eg, small groups. As the spread of AIDS in countries that DO USE condoms has shown, it seems chastity, once again, needs to be fashionable. All I am doing is observing the facts. Condoms have not stopped AIDS b/c they have not stopped promiscuity. On the contrary, they encourage promiscuity. Hence, AIDS will never be controlled, never mind defeated, until promiscuity is curtailed. Condoms are like soaking a log in water before tossing it into a forrest fire - it will soon become more fuel."
However, every time the spread of AIDS has been slowed down it is because of the combination of both abstinence and contraception. Not one or the other. No matter how much you reduce promiscuity some people will still indulge in it. The situation in Uganda backs this up. The solution is more education and public awareness. People at risk need to know both the benefits of condoms and their failings. If you only emphasize their failures then people that are going to behave in a risky manner will not use them at all. If you only emphasize the positive, people will continue the same risky behavior assuming that the condoms will protect them.
The societies where chastity developed in the past did so due to pure necessity. That is occuring to an extent in some parts of Africa. It is not fashionable in any sense. It is however necessary there. Here, I just don't see the necessity. We are on a libertine swing of the pendulem socially, but societies in the past have thrived with far stranger societal arrangements.
How about we stop with the analogies? None of them are particularly accurate(especially mine), and I'm spending way too much time thinking about new ones. :P
Zippy:
"This statement is either utter malarky or it must be taken as a refutation of all moral reasoning of any kind, including the sort of moral reasoning which precludes murder, the kind which says the rich ought not exploit the poor, and the kind which says that Jews don't belong in gas chambers en masse. For myself, I come down on the side of saying that the statement is utter malarky."
If chastity was a natural position, why do so many that expound upon it's propriety fail to uphold it? Most moralistic lines of reasoning are backed by rational ones. The rational backing for chastity does not apply equally in all situations. Neither does that for murder. After all, war is organized murder, and it can be justified in some situations.
There is a rational basis and line of reasoning behind both of the things that you put forward. Not exploiting the poor is simply a good idea for the rich, because if you kick them long enough they tend to fight back. Murder is a crime against the society and is punished as such.
Chastity on the other hand is far more problematic. If you are just looking at women, then you are right. Chastity for women has been enforced for much of t
grrr...why is it that it all showed up on preview but not the real post. 
Alright to continue...
he past several millenia. However, this is most definitely not the same case with men.
Moral reasoning has been used to justify both good things and bad. An example of this is the so called 'white mans burden' which drove so much of imperialism.
Chastity is not, in actual fact, any more or less problemmatic than any other moral question. It is portrayed as especially problemmatic by those who want to dispense with it, but they are wrong.
Your post contains, as far as I can tell:
1) an argument from hypocrisy (a form of ad hominem);
2) the argument that "people will do it anyway" (an ad populum - ad hominem two-step);
3) an argument from proportionalism (war = murder);
4) a utilitarian argument (Randian self-interest is solely what requires us to treat the poor charitably); and
5) a gratuitous assertion ("murder is a crime against society" [insinuating that inchastity is not]).
All of those argumentative techniques can be applied, with equal invalidity, to any moral question, not only to chastity. 1 and 2 are irrelevant to any rational question, let alone any moral question; 3 represents a crude caricature of moral reasoning; 4 inverts logic by pretending that selfishness is the moral reason not to treat the poor selfishly, so I suppose it would be morally OK to exploit the poor as long as we could get away with it; and 5 requires no refutation: inchastity is manifestly a terrible crime against society.
What basis in anything that has ever happened in human history leads you to believe that 'they will do it anyway' is false? Barring some sort of super STD with 100 % transmission and fatality rate emerging, this quite simply is not going to happen. As I said before, chastity only emerges in societies which require it due to outside issues.
War is socially sanctioned organized murder that happens to be necessary in some situations. Excuse me for the 'crude characture' but this is in fact the nature of the beast.
I'm curious to hear why specifically you reason that inchastity is a terrible crime against society.
"They will do it anyway" is not false. It is not false about murder, it is not false about theft, it is not false about exploitation of the poor, and it is not false about chastity.
Inchastity is a terrible crime against society because it is (manifestly) a primary driver of misery, disease, murder, and other things counter to the common good. It is a moral crime against the person himself (much as suicide is a crime against onesself) and it is a crime against the persons used as objects of cheap gratification. It causes harm to the self, to others, and to the common good in the pursuit of cheap personal gratification.
What would you do to end it therefore? Considering that such efforts have _never_ worked in the past, it seems to be a fools errand. Do you want to criminalize it, as we do with murder? I mean, exploitation of the poor is common to this day after all, so your labeling it as a moral crime doesn't seem to have had much of an effect.
"What would you do to end it therefore?"
End immorality? It won't happen. But that is a straw man. Our inability to end immorality in a utopian triumph does not eliminate our moral obligations.
So how do we go about reducing the risk of repercussions to others from those that do practice it? Aids is a perfect example of this. It spread into the general population through blood transfusions initially. Who know what kinds of diseases will mutate in the future, and shouldn't we do out best to prevent their spread?
...and shouldn't we do out best to prevent their spread?
We should do whatever we can that is morally right to prevent their spread, sure. Promoting the use of condoms is morally wrong. It is also, as a matter of happenstance, ineffective as a practical matter. But even if it were practically effective it would be morally wrong to do it.
There are lots of immoral things we could do to reduce the spread of AIDS. We could quaranteen and gas all the people who have it, for example, which actually would be very effective from a practical standpoint. But effectiveness does not imply moral licitness.
The fact that you put distributing condoms on the same level as mass murder is disgusting.
Fine, you don't think condoms are moral. Well, I do. I am reassured to see that the overwhelming majority of humanity agrees with me. You certainly haven't put forward and citations of Condoms ineffectiveness as part of ABC.
Color me unconvinced.
You also did not answer my question. Fine, you get your way and we stop all condom production and distribution tomorrow.
What do you do to curtail promiscuity and the now rapidly spreading STD's?
Fine, you don't think condoms are moral. Well, I do. I am reassured to see that the overwhelming majority of humanity agrees with me.
That too will take care of itself with time.
So STD's will 'take care of itself' as well?
When you've got a single finger in the dike holding back the flood you don't pull it out because it's got a bit of dirt on it.
Chris, if you really want to look into this further I suggest finding some things to read on consequentialism and proportionalism. You will remain in the dark about where Catholics are coming from on these issues without some additional background. The late Pope's encyclical _Veritas Splendour_ is a decent intro, although something more lengthy (that doesn't assume all of the background a papal encyclical assumes) would probably be most productive.
I'll try and make time to do some additional research soon. Real life is gonna get busy though in the next few weeks, so it'll probably be a while before I get to it.
An interesting conversation nonetheless. I hadn't read Humanae Vitae before now.
I am reassured to see that the overwhelming majority of humanity agrees with me.
Interesting. From a Christian perspective, that should be a reason for pause, not reassurance. Not that a majority consensus is necessarily wrong, but it is irrelevant to whether something is morally correct. And given its past track record (slavery, racism, wars for territorial conquest were once supported by the overwhelming majority) I would put little faith in it.
I am reassured more by the effect than the motivation. I already believe my position to be correct. The consensus simply shows that more than likely, my position is more likely to be continued than the opposing position.
The consensus simply shows that more than likely, my position is more likely to be continued than the opposing position.
Until such time as the purveyors of contraception and sexual license wipe themselves out, sure. One thing about people who kill themselves with infertile promiscuity is that their legacy cannot last.
There's no real evidence that those that use contraception are more are less likely than those that came before to use it. It's not a genetic trait.
Even if it were a genetic trait it wouldn't be passed on, because the progeny of a population that:
1) Contracts fatal disease through promiscuity; and
2) Uses contraception to insure that it doesn't reproduce
ultimately ends up a small minority.
That is why liberals have to recruit the children of ordinary decent people so aggressively. But at the end of the day Johnny learns on Mother's knee. Modern liberalism's days are numbered, not because of an outside threat but because modern liberalism is suicidal.
No, what I'm saying is that genetics and inheritance has absolutely nothing to do with politics. A child of a conservative christian family is just as likely to be liberal today as a child of a liberal family is to be conservative. With the way communications are today, parents cannot control all information their children get and therefore they can make their own decisions on political beliefs.
Are you saying that liberals aren't ordinary decent people? You do realize that that's roughly a third of the population right? In fact I would think that they would be far more ordinary than the population that contains yourself, considering your non-mainstream views on contraception.
A child of a conservative christian family is just as likely to be liberal today as a child of a liberal family is to be conservative.
This is fairly irrelevant, because time will tell. People who meet the two criteria I stated above have fewer children and shorter life expectancy than people who don't. And children of pro-life parents tend to be pro-life as adults. So it is only a matter of time.
Do you have any evidence of this? I have not seen such a correlation between pro-life parents and pro-life children. The political beliefs of the children of partisans is often diametrically opposed to that of the parents due to natural urges to independance.
Since parents can no longer limit the knowledge of their children, they are exposed to independant facts far more often in life.
Also, would you consider a vaccination against a particular STD to be encouragement to have sex? This is related to a recent story, where a vaccination for HPV, which causes cance in women has been discovered.
Many conservative christians are opposing the vaccination because they 'would see it as liscense to engage in premarital sex.'
http://www.newscientist.com/chan.../
mg18624954.500
I was curious to see how the thread evolved after I got off and I just couldn’t resist barging in after reading c matt’s astonishing comment sent on | 04.15.05 - 10:02 am
“Not that a majority consensus is necessarily wrong, but it is irrelevant to whether something is morally correct. And given its past track record (slavery, racism, wars for territorial conquest were once supported by the overwhelming majority) I would put little faith in it.
Well, “given the past record” of the Church one shouldn’t put much faith in it either.
It took the Church long to change her position on the things you’re listing above.
None of the Apostles condemned slavery, neither did St. Augustine or St. Thomas. And the Popes, generally, defended it through the ages.
Church’s view of slavery evolved from acceptance to denunciation just as the views of the “overwhelming majority” of people. Actually slower than that.
As late as 1866 the Vatican (Pope Pius IX) declared: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law,… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given".
The North’s war against South was not only stirred by Lincoln’s Christian truths and values. National, political and economic considerations played at least as prominent a role as the declared moral ones. And, of course, neither was the war waged after recommendation from Vatican as it was in 1888 that the Vatican first time clearly denounced slavery.
As for racism, it took almost 2000 years before the Church admitted and apologized for promoting anti-Semitism – one of racism's most vicious forms.
But to say that “wars for territorial conquest” were supported by “overwhelming majority” is truly fantastic.
At least from the perspective of the past say 1500 years of Europe history “overwhelming majority” (or ”people”) hated, feared and cursed war knowing that it brings them neither gain (territorial or otherwise) nor glory. These were reserved for kings, princes, barons and other nobles– hardly a majority.
A young peasants who under the pain of death had to roll up under the flags of their lords met mostly death, hunger and disease. They left their bones all over the fields of Europe - and widows and orphans in their native villages. Try to listen to the folksongs and stories of the European peoples: whether Russians, Poles, or French and Irish or and you will find out how deeply loathed is war.
Interestingly and ironically the most terrible wars that decimated Europe over centuries were religious wars. The “overwhelmingly audible” rallying cry was not so much “territorial gain! as “defend the faith!”- which translated to: “slaughter the corruptors of the true faith”. And slaughter they did - with God on their respective sides.
continued…
True, Hitler’s vision of Nazi world dominance was taken earnestly by the Germans, but its appeal had little to do with “territorial gains” and everything with transcendental ideas of truth, mission, sacrifice, revolution, historical justice and transforming of man to Superman. It can be said that although Nazism was a false religion, nevertheless the war it waged was authentically religious. Certainly not less than the wars between Catholic, Protestant, Calvinists, and orthodox Christians.
oops! I probably should have said:
.... and everything with transcendental, however corrupted, ideas of truth, mission, sacrifice, revolution, historical justice and transforming of man to Superman.
my last comments were not an attack on our Church. I am catholic so I don’t find pleasure or satisfaction mentioning her faults. I know that the Church is from God, but I also know that it is run not only by the Holy Spirit, but also rather imperfect men. And “given the past record” these men sometimes could be slightly wrong about a few things. Is there a chance that they might have erred when declaring that the use of contraceptives between spouses is a sin? But if so how seriously can one take those who declare that contraception is as evil as murder?
I believe that, like Church, the Ten Commandments is from God. But none of the Big Ten says “Thou Shall Not Don Condoms” (while having marital sex). That particular injunction is the fruit of man’s limited intellect and its interpretation (or distortion) of “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery”. This injunction (about contraceptives in marriage) was presented to us by Church’s authorities; more or less the same terribly clever and infinitely decent people who not so long ago were declaring that slavery is just fine.
I just looked again at my most recent posting and I am quite embarrassed of its muddled and full of errors second paragraph. Even a non native English speaker like me should be able to produce something more intelligible.
So please let me rewrite it in a hopefully clearer and shorter version. Here it is again:
I believe that God gave us the Ten Commandments and none of them explicitly prohibits the use of contraceptives. The prohibition came about when the Church’s authorities after a long and thorough investigation arrived at the conclusion that the commandment “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery” implies the sinfulness of the use of contraceptives – also inside marriage. The prohibition thus was not divinely revealed but concluded via an intellectual process. It is widely accepted that the human intellect is not infallible and history, including the history of the Church, amply demonstrates it. Although I honestly tried to follow the reasoning that led to the prohibition I could not be convinced and concluded that the explanation is faulty. Just as faulty as the reasoning behind the Church’s declaration of morality of slavery.
I just read the Humanea Vitae for the second time after over 25 years. Had I read it yesterday I wouldn’t have sent in my last comment.
I don’t know (yet) if the Encyclical has changed my position on the use of contraceptives in marriage from total acceptance to total rejection. But I regret discarding the ethical and philosophical argumentation behind it as “faulty”.
I was wrong.
However, what I still am convinced of is that equating the evil inherent in contraceptive sex with the evil of murder because they should belong to the “same category” is either fanatical, or disingenuous. And certainly absurd.
T:
I don't know what you mean by equating the two evils. If one agrees that they are both mortally sinful, then in that sense they are equivalent. Just as most Christians, I would think, agree that adultery and murder are both mortally sinful - heck, they are both part of the "Big Ten". Yet, that is not to say that their temporal effects are equivalent. While I see that both murder and contraception are mortally sinful, that does not mean I believe they both have the equivalent temporal effect.
C Matt,
I agree with you that “in that sense” - or being prohibited in the Big Ten - they are equivalent.
Still their, as you call it, “temporal effect” is very different, therefore I, being a temporal inhabitant of the temporal world of “temporal effects” will resist, prevent and condemn murder infinitely stronger than adultery. I may even kill someone who tries to kill me or mine, but I’d never respond in such manner to women who would try to commit adultery “on me”. (Excuse me, I was trying to be witty…)
Anyway, I am quite sure that you and “overwhelming majority” would act the same way. Why do we make such distinction? Because we have no choice – that’s the way we are made. Sinners, but at the same time holy enough to want to choose lesser evil. That is what I meant when I earlier wrote that “man doesn’t live by categories alone”, but first of all by degrees. And this is good. I believe that only angels “live by categories”. I believe that we sinners would quickly become monsters if we tried to.
You want an example?
Here is Zippy’s response to Chris P saying that in a situation where millions die of AIDS any means of protection including use of condoms should be available to people.
“ Promoting the use of condoms is morally wrong. It is also, as a matter of happenstance, ineffective as a practical matter. But even if it were practically effective it would be morally wrong to do it.”
Do you see what I see?
He says that it is morally preferable to let die than to save human being if the means of saving are contaminated by their relation to sin! Triumph of “Eternal Categories” over “Temporal Effects”,
or “Morality Strikes Again – Millions Die In Africa”.
It was inevitable that Zippy’s rigid, dogmatic clinging to “categories” had to eventually made him utter such terrible, pitiless, suiting Grand Inquisitor, words.
Of course, I don’t mean that Zippy is a monster. But I think he is quite wrong.
Actually, Mr. Hanski, it is Catholic dogma that we may never do evil in order that good may come of it. It is interesting that you would use that word in your criticism: I readily acknowledge, indeed firmly embrace and affirm, my dogmatism. You are arguing with the Catholic faith itself in this regard, not just with me personally.
I think you misunderstood me somewhat Mr. Hanski. Simply b/c the temporal effects may be different, does not mean one act is somehow preferred or allowable. Sure, the penalty of death for an adulterer, in my view, is out of balance with the temporal effect it causes. That does not mean it is ok to engage in adultery. As Zippy also pointed out, other effective means to stop the spread of AIDS include quarantining and exterminating those infected or maybe castration. But these are not moral methods to use. You are arguing that it is proper to use an immoral means to reach a moral end. No different from incinerating a populous city of noncombatants to end a war.
No. I think what he is saying is that you should not use immoral means to achieve a moral end.
And, speaking of temporal effects, contraception does have a very subservise effect that I think even murder cannot match. Murder is so obviously wrong (I hope) that it is difficult for society to be "sucker punched" into condoning it. Contraception brings with it a subtle shift in attitude that spreads like a cancer throughout society, thoroughly corrupting it without notice, until it is too late to reverse.
This contraceptive mentality is the attitude that our actions can and should be divorced from their natural consequences to avoid unwanted responsibility. What follows from this attitude is a society that is self-centered. This self-centered society is less willing to shoulder resposiblity for the common good, particulary in the willingness to raise the next generation - witness the current falling birth rates. I highly recommend Buchanan's analysis of this in Death of the West. It is an inescapable "temporal effect" of contraception.
Zippy,
Well, you may be in a good and honorable company, but this doesn’t necessarily mean you are right.
For the first “we may never do evil in order that the good may come of it” is hardly a dogma, which as far as I know, is a statement by Church’s authority, declaring something being true, or being a fact even if it can not be proved. For example the Immaculate Conception, the Triune Nature of God, immortality of soul and a few other. Ah, we mustn’t forget the hilarious, but infinitely useful (especially when it comes to establishing dogma) of Infallibility of the Church. My favorite.
Now, statements of the type thou shall, or thou should not, are commands that usually are a consequence of our beliefs. We act a certain way if we believe certain truth regardless whether the truth is self-evident, revealed or a dogma.
I fail to see what kind of Catholic or generally Christian dogma you are following when you want to deny adulterers life saving means. Certainly you are not following here the dogma of sanctity of the human life! Unless you mean that life of an adulterer is somehow less worth than life of other sinners. If so, please refer me to the pertinent dogma.
You are justified when you join the Church thundering against adultery from every available soapbox, but you insisting on what adulterers must not use while committing adultery is incongruous - to say the least. You, being a virtuous person, should concentrate on telling the rest of us how to be virtuous. But how to perform the actual sinning is best left to the sinners.
And you don’t need to be too proud of being a dogmatist or dogmatic. To follow a dogma is one thing. But to be dogmatic means to be manacled or confused by dogma - like when you utter an outrage:
But even if it were practically effective it would be morally wrong to do it
You know what I mean…?
C Matt,
Yes, Zippy pointed out a few things and the fact that you chose to bring up the one which Chris P. rejected fittingly as “disgusting” and which, I think, also is ridiculous - is quite discouraging.
Anyway, let’s agree on one thing. Before we continue our debate you show me exactly why trying to save human lives by any available means is immoral.
Being a catholic I believe that life is the highest good and therefore any means employed in saving human life is, per definition, moral.
Or, to put it the other way round, I believe that failure to help in saving even a single life whenever possible is immoral.
I don’t wish to sound rude, but if you don’t agree with me on that I don’t see much point in continuing our exchange.
I don't think either c matt or I misunderstand the position you are taking, but you are incorrect in thinking that it is a Catholic position. The Catholic Church teaches that we may never do evil, even in attempting to achieve a good end. The moral theory that says that it is OK to do evil in order to achieve a good end is called consequentialism, and it is condemned by the Catholic Church. See for example the encyclical _Veritas Splendor_.
That does leave open the question "what is an evil act?", of course. Killing-qua-killing is not (necessarily, though it could be) an evil act if it is done in self-defense or defense of another.
A contracepted sex act is what the Church terms an "intrinsically evil" act: that is, it is evil in itself. One may not commit (nor encourage others to commit) an intrinsically evil act, even when one sincerely believes that one is achieving a good end thereby.
Please, nowhere in the thread do I encourage (or encourage encouraging) the use of contraception.
If I encouraged adultery so some greater good may ensue from it you would be perfectly justified in accusing me of “consequentialism”. But I haven’t.
Here is what I mean in as clear and simple terms as possible:
As I see it we have two situations here.
The first is sex inside marriage. The other - outside of marriage.
In the former the use of contraceptive is what, according to The Catholic Church, corrupts conjugal sex into adultery and therefore is to be avoided. I agree, however reluctantly.
But in the latter case we are dealing with sex outside the marriage which, per definition, is adultery and whether it is performed with, or without a condom doesn’t make it any more, or less adulterous.
However it makes it a great deal more dangerous and in case of AIDS deadly not only for the participants, but for everyone they will engage sexually in the future.
If I were a confessional priest and someone confessed extramarital sex to me I would have most certainly given him heavier penitence if he didn’t use a condom thus exposing others beside himself to the deadly disease. He would be beside the sin of adultery be guilty of sin of negligence.
So yes, let’s condemn and preach against adultery whether inside or outside marriage, but let’s not blur the picture by rallying against contraceptives per se.
Of course, I don’t mean by that that the Church should be in the business of condom distribution any more than it should be in the business of distribution of clean syringes for drug addicts. I am only saying that that in the situation where there are millions of adulterers and addicts we would open ourselves to the charges of not only stupidity, but callousness if we would deny these poor sinners the chance of survival. We ourselves would sin.
But in the latter case we are dealing with sex outside the marriage which, per definition, is adultery and whether it is performed with, or without a condom doesn’t make it any more, or less adulterous.
I understand what you are saying, and it is not a crazy way to reason about things. But adultery and contraception are two distinct intrinsic evils. The fact that one evil act is being committed anyway does not create a moral license to commit another, additional and distinct, evil act; not even if that distinct evil act is forseen to serve a good end. For example, the fact that murder is being committed anyway does not mean that it becomes morally good to steal the murdered man's money in order to give it to the poor. And the fact that adultery or fornication is being committed anyway does not mean that it becomes morally good to add contraception to the list of sins, even if that contraception is anticipated to result in a good end.
The Catholic Church teaches (and it is knowable natural law) that we cannot commit a categorically evil act; not at all, not ever, not even if we truly believe that evil act to be performed as a means in the pursuit of a good end.
So in order to argue that condom use is OK in this instance you would have to argue that contraception is not categorically evil. But the Church's teaching in this regard is clear: contraception is categorically evil.
I am amazed to see that anyone could miss the main point.
Adultery IS sin.
Contraception is SINFUL.
Without Adultery contraception is morally perfectly neutral.
Or,
Contraception doesn’t have “its own” evil. Neither is the evil of contraception a mixture of (evil of) adultery and rubber. Its evil is “pure and uncontaminated” evil of adultery.
If you were a confessional priest would you give me extra penitence for using a condom while in a brothel? Why not?
Is it perhaps because you are NOT dealing here with two “distinct intrinsic evils”?
But wouldn’t you give me an extra penitence if I during my visit in the brothel also stole the prostitute’s money? Of course you would!
Is it perhaps because we ARE dealing here with two “distinct intrinsic evils”?
Anyway, I hope you will agree with me on two things; that our exchange is not going to produce an acceptable for both parties result in the nearest future and that it becomes quite boring. It is the latter that I have a problem dealing with. I think I will have to stop here.
See you perhaps in some future thread. Who knows...
Contraception doesn’t have “its own” evil.
I don't object to you contending that that is the case. What I object to is you contending that that is consistently Catholic. It is not. It is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.
I hope you will agree with me on two things;
I will agree with your two things as long as you agree not to falsely represent your position as consistent with the Catholic faith.
Nowhere did I imply that my position is that of the Catholic Church.
It is my own. I just happen to be a Catholic.
Here you say that because you are Catholic you believe that the end justifies the means when attempting to save lives:
"Being a catholic I believe that life is the highest good and therefore any means employed in saving human life is, per definition, moral.
Or, to put it the other way round, I believe that failure to help in saving even a single life whenever possible is immoral."
But the Catholic Church teaches that the ends do not ever justify the means when the means is an intrinsically evil act. The Catholic Church also teaches that contracepted sex acts are intrinsically evil acts.
OK, for your sake I shall change it:
"Being a human I believe that (human) life is the highest good and therefore any means employed in saving human life is, per definition, moral.
Or, to put it the other way round, I believe that failure to help in saving even a single life whenever possible is immoral."
Does it make me a non-catholic, or a bad catholic?
If so, then, please take my sincere advice; if your logic brings you to such aberrant (and un-catholic) conclusion then you should stay away from tinkering with logical analysis. It is definitely not where you shine, Zippy.
It is better for the Catholic Church not to be defended at all than to be defended as defectively as you do.
And to return to my question of “does it make me a non-catholic?” - I’d rather be un-catholic than inhuman.
Does it make me a non-catholic, or a bad catholic?
What it makes you is wrong.
... if your logic brings you to such aberrant (and un-catholic) conclusion then you should stay away from tinkering with logical analysis.
The fact that the end does not in general justify the means, and that an intrinsically evil means is never justified by a good end, is indeed a Catholic principle. But do I thank you for the amusement I received from your attempt to criticize my rationality and orthodoxy.
...your attempt to criticize my rationality and orthodoxy...
your WHAT?
O Ecclesie, Sursum Corda! Hic Habetis Defensorem!
Habemus Zippy!!!
Before we continue our debate you show me exactly why trying to save human lives by any available means is immoral
I thought I just did - incinerating a city of 100,000 non-combatants (an available means) to shorten a war and save lives of combatants. Or are you saying that indiscriminantly killing 100,000 noncombatants is ok?
Or experimenting on Auchswitz prisoners in order to develop medical techniques. How about creating test tube babies to harvest for medical cures?
I thought I just did
No, you didn’t. Read my lips, I asked “WHY trying to save human life by every means available is immoral?” So again, why is it immoral?
And what these wildly incongruous examples have to do with my question? One doesn’t have to be a logician to grasp that if our purpose is to save lives then it follows from this that killing can not be one of the means we should employ - because it defeats the objectives we seek..
OK, just in case it is too theoretical - here is something more down-to-earth; if your goal is to wash the floor in your home, you probably won’t consider dumping a bucket of pig manure in the middle of the dining room. I hope you will admit that this would be a rather absurd and self-defeating way to go about it. But certainly not more absurd (and self-defeating) than killing people in order to save human lives…
Anyway, I don’t know about you, but I had enough. Please, excuse me if I won’t reply to your future comment in this thread.
Killing-qua-killing is a red herring. If you are willing to do anything short of killing (even if it is immoral) to stop the spread of AIDS and save lives, just use the military to quaranteen everyone who has it, pass strict laws outlawing the behaviors that spread it (and enforce them with vigor by banishing violators to the quaranteened areas), and perform science experiements on people who are dying of AIDS with or without their consent and cooperation.
Nobody really believes that the end justifies the means. They just don't really believe their preferred means to be evil. T. Hanski doesn't believe the use of condoms to be evil. He is wrong about that, but the rest of his means-ends arguments are just a red herring to avoid facing that fact squarely.
If condom use is evil in itself then condoms should not be used, period, no matter what end is being pursued. All the rhetorical dancing is just to sneak past the basic issue of whether condom use is or is not evil.
Perhaps we have a language communication problem. You seem to say that any means to save a life is moral. One way to save a life may be to destroy another. In fact, that has been argued and done as a justification for nuking Nagasaki. Thus, your statement "trying to save human life by every means available" - your words - is not always moral. Thus, the answer must be that only moral means to save a life can be moral.
One way to save a life may be to destroy another.
NO!!! This would be SWAPPING lives, not SAVING lives - implying that some lives are more valuable than other.
I could have never possibly meant such a thing after so emphatically and persistently declaring my belief in the sanctity of the human life!
OK, this time I REALLY am not going back to the thread. I, for a moment, considered replying to Zippy, but I give up now. Please give him my regards and tell him I tried, but something in me screamed and moaned and then died (probably and I don’t care anymore.
Vaya con Dios and watch out for them evil condoms!
Commenting by HaloScan
