On Opposing Contraception

Of course!! Are they not the 'god's ' appointed ministers in pro forma? ;-)

Post 21

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 2:06pm

Infants born to very young women, under the age of 16, are at much higher risk. Contraception reduces the number of at risk births.

But that doesn't necessarily make contraception a benefit, especially if it increases the propensity for adolescent promiscuity. It would be much more beneficial if young women were to practice abstinence.

What you're really against is pre-marital sex, not contraception.

I'm against both. Really.

I don't know many, if any, couples who don't practice birth control even after they're married. Is it the chruch's position that women who do not wish to have children abstain from sexual relations with their husbands? Ridiculous.

The Church's position is that couples engaging in sexual intercourse ought to be open to conception, and thus not act in ways which deliberately frustrate the procreative purpose of the sexual act.

You'll have to provide a good argument against practicing artificial birth control after marriage for any of this to make sense.

Artificial birth control cheapens the sexual act, since it prevents the ability of the couple to fully give themselves to one another. By intending to prevent conception, the couple divorces the act from any purpose other than mutual pleasure. For, even though the worthy intent of the couple is to fully express their love for one another in a physical act, their love is not joined to the proper function of the act in which they engage themselves. And because the intention (mutual self-giving) is not aligned with an appropriate means (because the couple either chemically or physically prevents the full, biological giving of themselves), the end (a contracepted sexual act) does not satisfy the intention (of mutual self-giving).

Condoms, coupled with spermicidal aids, present none of these risks. None. Same with the good old fashioned diaphragm, and the coil. No risks.

I was speaking of the risks of contraception in general, not in particular. And, in general, contraceptive practice is risky, because most women use the pill to contracept, and the pill is risky. How's that for a generalized use of the transitive property? ;)

I wrote: "Life isn't one big pleasure trip."

Teresa replied:

It should be one big happiness trip.

Right, but in all sincerity, it usually isn't.

Pleasure is impossible without happiness.

Pleasure is quite possible without happiness. Ask any heroin addict.

Pleasure is associated with values, which are inherently connected to life.

Pleasure is associated with values, but values are not inherently connected to life. Again, refer to O.D.ing heroin addicts.

I have read that the sponge is a courtesan's best friend. Alas, nowadays you have to order it online as it is practically impossible to find in stores. As for the coil, I have seen it get mixed reviews with at least one woman saying it caused horrible problems resulting in a hysterectomy. But I have never seen such complaints about the sponge. Used in conjunction with condoms -- a standard practice in Nevada brothels according to my research -- pregnancy becomes virtually impossible.

This is what a society which practically worships sex looks like.

Herr Leibniz presented many statistical numbers, and I assume they are pretty much correct, whatever the source they come from. I am just wondering, among those soaring incidents of adultery, divorce, herpes infection etc., how many are committed by Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Atheists, etc.?

I am not aware of a breakdown. In any case, it's likely impossible to gauge how committed each group is to its specific belief system.

God has a lot to answer for! The cancer, death, tornados, plagues, diseases of all kinds. "Thanks" God. You are such a blood-thirsty bringer of suffering and indescriminate destruction. Darn those scientists for finding ways to thwart your joyous bloodbath!

The argument from evil is perhaps the sole legitimate argument for atheism. However, logically speaking, it doesn't work. And, evidentially speaking, it doesn't work so long as belief in God is justified. In any case, natural or environmental evils are not created by God, but are rather a result of natural privation, which is inevitable in any limited creation.

I'll question the validity of some of your claims and especially the assumption that they are bad. But even in the cases where I agree your figures show a bad trend, I disagree with your implication is that the figures are not only correlated with chemical contraception, but caused by it. Since the 1960s we've also endured a substantial growth of the welfare state such as Johnson's 'War on Poverty' and the creation of many new government programs which supplant the family with the State. If you want to find causality, I'd look there first.

True, but society's perception of sex has changed, and this most likely has to do with the separation of sex from procreation. That much should be obvious.

I'll assume your figures are correct, though don't agree with the assumption that deemphasis on legal marriage is a bad thing. I think that increase in divorce rate has generally been a good thing as I expect it due less to people abandoning good marriages than now being willing and able to leave negative, destructive ones.

The reason why such marriages are negative and destructive probably has to do with their being entered with wrong intent. Women and men who marry eachother because they love one another and would like to raise children with one another are quite different from men and women who marry eachother on the basis of trivialities-- such as the size of the man's wallet or the size of the female's breasts.

"-Every country in the world has a declining fertility rate."

Great! (actually, I doubt this truly holds for every country and would want to see a cite, but in any case I don't see this as a bad thing if true)

"World fertility rates have been declining dramatically for the last fifty years. From a high of 5.0 children per woman in 1950, the fertility rate has decreased by 44% to 2.8 children per woman in 1999." http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicswisconsin/e_lecture/pop_images/trends_child_bearing.jpg

"-Almost no couples (<1%) who use Natural Family Planning (instead of birth control) get divorced."

And no couples (0%!) who don't get married get divorced!

The comparison is absurd.

I wrote: "-Studies show that delay in sexual activity is linked to greater happiness."

How would you even measure this (did those doing the study have a Jolly-Meter)? Seriously, I'd like to see references on this, but am extremely skeptical of anyone studying anything claiming to measure happiness levels.

You can measure "happiness" via negativa, i.e. by measuring levels of depression.

A full quarter (25.3 percent) of teenage girls who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 7.7 percent of teenage girls who are not sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, sexually active girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed than are girls who are not sexually active.
Some 8.3 percent of teenage boys who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 3.4 percent of teenage boys who are not sexually active are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, boys who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed as are those who are not sexually active.-from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, Wave II, 1996.

Robert Malcomb wrote:

Probably referring to 'religious happiness'......

Nope, and this makes your post, as well as the next four posts, irrelevant.

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/06, 2:08pm)

Post 22

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 3:03pm

"The Church's position is that couples engaging in sexual intercourse ought to be open to conception, and thus not act in ways which deliberately frustrate the procreative purpose of the sexual act."

Though I don't care what the Church proscribes, I just have to note that 'Natural Family Planning' also aims to avoid the procreative purpose of the sexual act and claims 99% success rate at it.

"By intending to prevent conception, the couple divorces the act from any purpose other than mutual pleasure."

Great! Oh, I mean "God forbid!"

"And because the intention (mutual self-giving) is not aligned with an appropriate means (because the couple either chemically or physically prevents the full, biological giving of themselves), the end (a contracepted sexual act) does not satisfy the intention (of mutual self-giving)."

Are infertile couples sinning? Or do they just 'cheapen the sexual act' without committing sin?

"-Pleasure is impossible without happiness.

Pleasure is quite possible without happiness. Ask any heroin addict."

I'll actually go roughly with your definition here. I use 'pleasure' as even including things hedonistic, short-range, and possibly in conflict with long-range goals, whereas 'happiness' I limit to achieving long-range values.

"The argument from evil is perhaps the sole legitimate argument for atheism."

Other than other minor quibbles such as contradicting reality and lacking evidence, sure.

"The reason why such marriages are negative and destructive probably has to do with their being entered with wrong intent. Women and men who marry eachother because they love one another and would like to raise children with one another are quite different from men and women who marry eachother on the basis of trivialities-- such as the size of the man's wallet or the size of the female's breasts."

I actually agree - which is why it seems you should also either support lower marriage or higher divorce rate as well.

"World fertility rates have been declining dramatically for the last fifty years."

So not necessarily every country, but in aggregate. Again, nothing wrong with this. No point in breeding children to starve.

"You can measure "happiness" via negativa, i.e. by measuring levels of depression. "

And depression measured by self-report - effectively on par with measuring happiness merely by self-report ('are you happy?'). The study could mean various things, at least including:
- teen sex leads to depression (which is presumably what you want it to mean)
- depression makes teens more likely to have sex
- less repressed teens are more likely both to admit rather than hide feelings of depression, and to have sex
It would require follow-on with studies such as using as objective behavioral criteria as possible for gauging depression rather than merely self-report, studying individuals across time to compare before and after being sexually active, and other methods to attempt to discern what the correlation means.

Aaron

Post 23

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:13pm

The Church's position is that couples engaging in sexual intercourse ought to be open to conception, and thus not act in ways which deliberately frustrate the procreative purpose of the sexual act.

In other words, the Church demands one acts like an animal and have sex for procreational purposes, not to act as human and for the enjoyment of it... because that is just how and for animals act - for procreational purposes - not as humans do, add the joy and pleasure of the doing for the celebration of one's being as human....

Post 24

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:46pm

Pleasure is quite possible without happiness. Ask any heroin addict.

Look, if you want to make the term "pleasure" relative, go right ahead. If you want to compare heroin addiction with married couples using contraceptive methods, I have no choice but to think you're a nut. "Being rich without happiness is quite possible. Ask any thief."

Artificial birth control cheapens the sexual act, since it prevents the ability of the couple to fully give themselves to one another.

I've heard that line before. I'll bet all the gals here have.

By intending to prevent conception, the couple divorces the act from any purpose other than mutual pleasure.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

For, even though the worthy intent of the couple is to fully express their love for one another in a physical act, their love is not joined to the proper function of the act in which they engage themselves.

What, pray tell, is the "proper function" for which the act is engaged?

And because the intention (mutual self-giving) is not aligned with an appropriate means (because the couple either chemically or physically prevents the full, biological giving of themselves), the end (a contracepted sexual act) does not satisfy the intention (of mutual self-giving).
Wow. So the young couple across the street, who are clearly crazy about each other, and both working to support two small children, should give up their dreams of a bigger home, Disney World vacations, and college educations, because having more children, and struggling forever to raise them, so those children can then carry on the tradition of drudgery and struggle, to maintain appearances? Wow.

I'm thinking of that old Monty Python movie.... "The Meaning of Life."

I have to hand it to you, though. You've got the rhetoric down cold. I can see why weaker minds, given no alternative, buy into it.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 7:29pm

As we're seeing here, the official doctrine of the Catholic church is pretty silly when it comes to sexuality. Fortunately, most Catholics are not fundamentalists. I've come to know many Catholics over the years and I count several among my closest friends. Not one Catholic I've ever known follows the church guidelines on birth control and premarital sex.
(Edited by Pete on 3/07, 6:53am)

Post 26

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 10:58pm

"The Church's position is that couples engaging in sexual intercourse ought to be open to conception, and thus not act in ways which deliberately frustrate the procreative purpose of the sexual act."

Though I don't care what the Church proscribes, I just have to note that 'Natural Family Planning' also aims to avoid the procreative purpose of the sexual act and claims 99% success rate at it.

Not all forms of Natural Family Planning are allowable. For, as the Catechism states:

"There must be excluded as intrinsically immoral every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." �2370

Thus, NFP can be abused as well. Which is why the Church only permits the use of NFP according to the above condition. As to the distinction between NFP and contraception, the apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio explains:

In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. �32

Aaron wrote:

"By intending to prevent conception, the couple divorces the act from any purpose other than mutual pleasure."

Great! Oh, I mean "God forbid!"

I think my statement was misunderstood. Certainly there is nothing wrong with pleasure qua pleasure, but certain kinds of pleasure are degrading, perverse, and/or sinful. Fornication is sinful, though I'm sure this does not make it unpleasurable. Similarly, indulging in schadenfreude can be pleasurable, even though this too is sinful.

The Church's view is that sexual acts carried out with the intention of preventing conception are disordered, and hence sinful, because they consist in the couple deliberately frustrating the purpose which they truly seek, i.e. mutual self-giving. Mutual pleasure is therefore a wrong end for the conjugal act, not in itself, but insofar as it fails to attain the higher goal of mutual self-giving-- the expression of love in which the conjugal act ought to consist.

Are infertile couples sinning? Or do they just 'cheapen the sexual act' without committing sin?

Infertile couples are not sinning, so long as their sexual acts are carried out with the proper intention. Indeed, not infrequently, by the grace of God, couples that are believed to be infertile conceive.

"The argument from evil is perhaps the sole legitimate argument for atheism."
Other than other minor quibbles such as contradicting reality and lacking evidence, sure.

Attempting to refute theism with the justification that it "contradicts reality" is clearly conclusion-begging.
As for the lacking evidence charge, I disagree. Try Swinburne's The Existence of God, for starters. It approaches the issue using Bayesian probability theory.

"The reason why such marriages are negative and destructive probably has to do with their being entered with wrong intent. Women and men who marry eachother because they love one another and would like to raise children with one another are quite different from men and women who marry eachother on the basis of trivialities-- such as the size of the man's wallet or the size of the female's breasts."

I actually agree - which is why it seems you should also either support lower marriage or higher divorce rate as well.

I support lower marriage; we need more vocations to the priesthood and sisterhood.

"World fertility rates have been declining dramatically for the last fifty years."

So not necessarily every country, but in aggregate. Again, nothing wrong with this. No point in breeding children to starve.

Lack of food is not an issue. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/151180/the_myth_of_over_population.html

I wrote, "You can measure 'happiness' via negativa, i.e. by measuring levels of depression. "

And depression measured by self-report - effectively on par with measuring happiness merely by self-report ('are you happy?'). The study could mean various things, at least including:
- teen sex leads to depression (which is presumably what you want it to mean)
- depression makes teens more likely to have sex
- less repressed teens are more likely both to admit rather than hide feelings of depression, and to have sex
It would require follow-on with studies such as using as objective behavioral criteria as possible for gauging depression rather than merely self-report, studying individuals across time to compare before and after being sexually active, and other methods to attempt to discern what the correlation means.

Good point(s).

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/06, 11:05pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 4:16am

In other words, the Church demands one acts like an animal and have sex for procreational purposes, not to act as human and for the enjoyment of it... because that is just how and for animals act - for procreational purposes - not as humans do, add the joy and pleasure of the doing for the celebration of one's being as human....

The Catholic position is not that procreation is the only real purpose for sexual intercourse. On the contrary, Holy Church maintains that the sexual act has a unitive purpose as well. Though the unitive component should not be separated from the procreative, it is, in itself, ascribed considerable value: for sex, as a physical representation or consummation of love, is a beautiful, joyful, pleasurable, and holy thing.

The secularist philosophy of sex is what? "Have fun, be safe"? Or is it, "Make love, not war"? [Which is an interesting way of speaking because sex, I'm sure, has never made love. Though it has, I'm sure, killed it. Couples do not make love through sex: they either "make lust" (and thus trample on their inherent dignity as persons), or they crown or consummate a love that is already abundantly present, truly celebrating their creative gift, which is really an invitation to participate with God in the creation of human life.]

Look, if you want to make the term "pleasure" relative, go right ahead.

But it is.

If you want to compare heroin addiction with married couples using contraceptive methods, I have no choice but to think you're a nut.

Which is why I never made the comparison. Although, assuredly, with the amount of contraceptive sex some couples have (especially in France), one wonders whether the act is not solely done for the chemical euphoria created by it, making it similar to the use of drugs.

I wrote: "By intending to prevent conception, the couple divorces the act from any purpose other than mutual pleasure."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

But it's not, as I just made clear.

What, pray tell, is the "proper function" for which the act is engaged?

Procreation. I've always been astounded by this. You'll often hear couples speak of conceiving "by accident" or say something like "we weren't expecting this; it took us by surprise!", etc. My question is, "How?" You've taken part in a reproductive act, using reproductive organs, and you find it a surprise that this results in pregancy?! Nothing is counterintuitive if this is not.

So the young couple across the street, who are clearly crazy about each other, and both working to support two small children, should give up their dreams of a bigger home, Disney World vacations, and college educations, because having more children, and struggling forever to raise them, so those children can then carry on the tradition of drudgery and struggle, to maintain appearances? Wow.

NFP can be used to "space" births.

As we're seeing here, the official doctrine of the Catholic church is pretty silly when it comes to sexuality.

It's actually beautifully coherent.

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/07, 4:21am)

Post 28

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 6:45am

Gottfried, do you think government ought to outlaw all forms of contraception including barrier methods such as condoms, sponges and diaphragms that prevent contact between sperm and egg?

Post 29

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 8:14am

Suggested reading from Elizabeth Anscombe, an eminent Catholic philosopher:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml
(She explains the Church position and confronts objections to it much better than I do.) For example...

St Augustine indeed didn't write explicitly of any other motive than mere sensuality in seeking intercourse where procreation isn't aimed at. What he says doesn't exclude the possibility of a different motive. There's the germ of an account of the motive called by theologians "rendering the marriage debt" in his observation that married people owe to one another a kind of mutual service. Aquinas made two contributions, the first of which concerns this point: he makes the remark that a man ought to pay the marriage debt if he can see his wife wants it without her having to ask him. And he ought to notice if she does want it. This is an apt gloss on Augustine's "mutual service", and it destroys the basis for the picture which some have had of intercourse not for the sake of children as necessarily a little bit sinful on one side, since one must be "demanding", and not for any worthy motive but purely "out of desire for pleasure". One could hardly say that being diagnosable as wanting intercourse was a sin! St Thomas, of course, speaks of the matter rather from the man's side, but the same thing could be said from the woman's, too; the only difference being that her role would be more that of encouragement and invitation. (It's somewhat modern to make this comment. We are much more conscious nowadays of people's complexities and hang-ups than earlier writers seem to have been.)

Luke wrote:

Gottfried, do you think government ought to outlaw all forms of contraception including barrier methods such as condoms, sponges and diaphragms that prevent contact between sperm and egg?

Of course not.

Post 30

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 9:26pm

Sorry, but I have to post this video clip. It's just way too appropriate!

Post 31

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 12:13am

The 'Church' DOES practice contraception (not to mention deception by its professionals about its practice.) It merely advocates a different kind for heterosexually-oriented non-professional sheep. --- Anyone been reading the news in the last 4 years?
A 'little' self-restraint by the 'Church' regarding its centuries-history of institutionalized denial, deception, bribery, and ultimately moral-hypocrisy in so many areas, especially of late re only sex, might be the best role-model for self-restraint mandated by their 'moral-leaders' to their sheep.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/08, 12:26am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/08, 12:32am)

Post 32

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 5:00pm

GWL,

What if a woman has had a hysterectomy or is too old to get pregnant. Does Catholicism say that she has no moral right to sex or to sexual gratification? Or what if a man has had a vasectomy, so that he cannot possibly impregnate his wife. Are they forbidden to have sex? If one does not have a partner, is masturbation forbidden as well? I know a man whose doctor told him that he should masturbate more, because he had a congested prostate. Would Catholicism condemn the doctor's advice as immoral? Are all forms of non-vaginal sex condemned by the Church, on the grounds that they cannot result in pregnancy?

- Bill

Post 33

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 5:16pm

The 'Church' DOES practice contraception (not to mention deception by its professionals about its practice.) It merely advocates a different kind for heterosexually-oriented non-professional sheep. --- Anyone been reading the news in the last 4 years?

This is ridiculous, considering that only about 4% of priests have been accused of child molestation, and that fornication of any kind has always been strongly condemned by the Church as gravely sinful.

Just to put this all in perspective, priests are much less likely to abuse children than the total U.S. male adult population. Still more, abuse rates are much higher among the ranks of public school teachers than among priests.

Finally, the Church does not "advocate" this sort of abuse. It is a 1 billion member organization, and, being human, certainly has flawed individuals in its ranks. Obviously, some of its ministers probably covered up some instances of abuse out of incredulity or in order to protect the reputation of the Church. This was clearly wrong and intolerable. However, the evidence shows that there was absolutely nothing like a mass conspiratorial cover-up of priestly abuse. To say that the Church advocates this practice is nothing short of preposterous.

A 'little' self-restraint by the 'Church' regarding its centuries-history of institutionalized denial, deception, bribery, and ultimately moral-hypocrisy in so many areas, especially of late re only sex, might be the best role-model for self-restraint mandated by their 'moral-leaders' to their sheep.

The Church is a worldwide, human institution. It is going to have its problems, and some of its visible members will not be members in spirit. St. Augustine, back in the 400s, once commented that "there are some whose reason for desiring to become Christians is either that they may gain the favor of men from whom they look for temporal advantages, or that they are reluctant to offend those whom they fear. But these are reprobate; and although the church bears them for a time, as the threshing-floor bears the chaff until the period of winnowing, yet if they fail to amend and begin to be Christians in sincerity in view of the everlasting rest which is to come, they will be separated from it in the end."

Any time high moral standards are set, such as they are in the Church, there will be those who are unable to meet them. And, as a result, those who set such high standards open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. I think you'll agree with me, though, that it is better to commend and strive for moral perfection than it is to denounce as hypocrites all those who preach it-- and live one's own life in moral darkness.

For the measure of men is not so much found in goodness of action but in goodness of will.

What if a woman has had a hysterectomy or is too old to get pregnant...Or what if a man has had a vasectomy, so that he cannot possibly impregnate his wife. Are they forbidden to have sex?

From Humanae Vitae: "The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

If one does not have a partner, is masturbation forbidden as well?

Yes.

I know a man whose doctor told him that he should masturbate more, because he had a congested prostate. Would Catholicism condemn the doctor's advice as immoral?

If masterbation were the sole, effective means of clearing the prostate, and if the man would only be masterbating with the intention of avoiding prostate cancer (not for self-seeking pleasure which degrades the sexual function), then the Church would find nothing immoral in the actions of either the doctor or the man.

Are all forms of non-vaginal sex condemned by the Church, on the grounds that they cannot result in pregnancy?

The procreative act must end vaginally.

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/17, 6:06pm)

Post 34

Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 10:52pm

[GWL] Any time high moral standards are set, such as they are in the Church, there will be those who are unable to meet them.
Unable or unwilling? If they are unable to meet them, then the standards are inappropriate to begin with. A standard that it is impossible to follow is not a valid standard of moral conduct, to begin with.
And, as a result, those who set such high standards open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. I think you'll agree with me, though, that it is better to commend and strive for moral perfection than it is to denounce as hypocrites all those who preach it-- and live one's own life in moral darkness.

Of course -- if that were the only alternative, but it isn't. What is a hypocrite, if it isn't someone who preaches one thing but practices another?

For the measure of men is not so much found in goodness of action but in goodness of will.

What is that supposed to mean? If an action is good (i.e., morally required), then it must be capable of being chosen, so that if it is willed, it will necessarily occur. There is no rational dichotomy between goodness of action and goodness of will. Since goodness of will applies only to actions that the moral agent is capable of choosing, if the will is good, then the action must be good as well.

I asked, "What if a woman has had a hysterectomy or is too old to get pregnant...Or what if a man has had a vasectomy, so that he cannot possibly impregnate his wife. Are they forbidden to have sex?"

From Humanae Vitae:
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

I don't see the validity of this argument. Contrary to the above declaration, human life is not transmitted through the sexual activity of an infertile couple, any more than it's transmitted through the sexual activity of masturbation. Nor does sexual intercourse have an intrinsic relationship to the procreation of life, since it's possible to have sexual intercourse naturally without causing a pregnancy. While it is true that the desire for sexual pleasure motivates reproductive activity, that doesn't mean that, for human beings, sex is intrinsically related to reproduction. Besides, if our "intelligent designer" (and I use the word advisedly) really viewed sexual intercourse as intrinsic to the procreation of life, why didn't he (she, it) design human beings in such a way that they could have sex only when the woman is fertile? Why, in other words, didn't he design them like animals who desire sex only when the female is fertile and in heat? Oh, I know: he wanted to test us, to see if we would obey him. Or is it that he wanted us to reproduce like animals? -- which is the status to which this doctrine reduces us -- viz., the status of stock farm animals, who are mating, not for their own sake, but for the sake of their owner.

If sex really were considered by the Church to be intrinsically related to reproduction, then why is sex that cannot possibly result in a pregnancy considered acceptable just so long as the inability to become pregnant isn't willed by the respective participants? If the purpose of sex is procreation, why should an older couple who are no longer fertile not be prohibited from having sex in the same way that an older person who isn't married because he or she can't find a suitable partner is prohibited from having sex, i.e., from masturbating? What does it matter whether the infertility is willed or not. In neither case, can the purpose of sex be reproduction, since reproduction is impossible. In either case, it must therefore be, and most assuredly is, engaged in simply for the sake of the sexual pleasure.

"If one does not have a partner, is masturbation forbidden as well?"

[GWL] Yes.

How many Catholic men (priests included) never masturbate? I'd be surprised if it were more than a tiny fraction, if that. What better way to engender guilt and to lower one's self-esteem than to forbid something as natural, pleasurable and accessible as masturbation. I'm surprised the Church didn't forbid ice cream, unless it were required and/or consumed solely for the purpose of making one a better parent. God forbid that it should be eaten simply because it happens to taste good!

"I know a man whose doctor told him that he should masturbate more, because he had a congested prostate. Would Catholicism condemn the doctor's advice as immoral?"

[GWL] If masterbation were the sole, effective means of clearing the prostate, and if the man would only be masterbating with the intention of avoiding prostate cancer (not for self-seeking pleasure which degrades the sexual function), then the Church would find nothing immoral in the actions of either the doctor or the man.

(Just to be clear, the doctor recommended masturbation to avoid prostatitis, not prostate cancer.) In any event, how does one masturbate (or have any form of sex, for that matter) without doing so for self-seeking pleasure? For a man, the sex act is innately pleasurable, and is literally impossible for him to perform unless he is focused on and seeking his own pleasure, even if his doing so is a means to some other end or goal. Any attempt to avoid seeking his own pleasure will render him impotent. If anything can be said to degrade the sexual act, it is the attempt to perform it without seeking one's own pleasure.

Perhaps the rejoinder will be that it's okay to seek one's own pleasure as long as it's done as a means to some other "legitimate" goal. Question: What does the Church have against pleasure as an end in itself? The answer is: It does not believe that human beings are ends in themselves or that they should live for their own sake, i.e., for the sake of their own pleasure and happiness. Man's proper goal, according to Catholicism, is abject obedience to the commandments laid down by the Church hierarchy.

"Are all forms of non-vaginal sex condemned by the Church, on the grounds that they cannot result in pregnancy?"

[GWL]The procreative act must end vaginally.

Of course, because sex, according to the Catholic Church, is to be regarded not as an end in itself but only as a means to an end. Its justification is not a person's or couple's own enjoyment, but simply reproduction, i.e., the creation of another human being. On this view, human beings are not ends in themselves, but simply tools for the creation of other human beings, who, in turn, are tools for the creation of still other human beings. Obedience to God in the sacrifice of one's own enjoyment is one's foremost duty and virtue, all of it justified by the most preposterous kind of religious fantasy and superstition. Those who subscribe to this view of life and morality deserve it.

- Bill

Post 35

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 7:10pm

I've been unable to post on this site as of late because I have been literally swamped with more important work. Anyhow...

I wrote:

"Any time high moral standards are set, such as they are in the Church, there will be those who are unable to meet them."

William replied:

Unable or unwilling? If they are unable to meet them, then the standards are inappropriate to begin with. A standard that it is impossible to follow is not a valid standard of moral conduct, to begin with.

Thanks for pointing out my imprecise wording. What I really intended to say was, 'Any time high moral standards are set, such as they are in the Church, there will be those who do not meet them'. You are right in saying that "A standard that it is impossible to follow is not a valid standard of moral conduct."

I continued the above statement:

"And, as a result, those who set such high standards open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. I think you'll agree with me, though, that it is better to commend and strive for moral perfection than it is to denounce as hypocrites all those who preach it-- and live one's own life in moral darkness."

William responded:

Of course -- if that were the only alternative, but it isn't. What is a hypocrite, if it isn't someone who preaches one thing but practices another?

True, there is another option, viz. moral mediocrity or indifferentism. Yes, a hypocrite is someone who preaches one thing but practices another, which is why all of us are hypocrites to some extent or other--at least to the extent that we fail to live up to the moral standards that we set for ourselves and that we wish to communicate to others. (Objectivists, for instance, are in some sense guilty of hypocricy when they donate money to certain charities, since it would seem that charitable contribution runs against objectivist principles.)

I wrote:

"For the measure of men is not so much found in goodness of action but in goodness of will."

William replied:

What is that supposed to mean? If an action is good (i.e., morally required), then it must be capable of being chosen, so that if it is willed, it will necessarily occur. There is no rational dichotomy between goodness of action and goodness of will. Since goodness of will applies only to actions that the moral agent is capable of choosing, if the will is good, then the action must be good as well.

If I will to do the morally good action of saving a man from a burning car, but am incapable of doing so because I've broken my legs in the very same car wreck, then I've willed something good, and what I've willed to occur has not happened. Therefore, there is in fact a valid distinction between goodness of action and goodness of will. To say that goodness of will applies only to the actions that a moral agent is capable of choosing forgets the fact that a moral agent may choose to do some good action, but then be rendered unable to do so by forces or circumstances outside of his or her control. Moreover, you ought to consider that a good action only follows from a good will on the condition that one has the appropriate knowledge of what the best action in the situation is.

I quoted Humanae Vitae:

"The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

William replied:

I don't see the validity of this argument. Contrary to the above declaration, human life is not transmitted through the sexual activity of an infertile couple, any more than it's transmitted through the sexual activity of masturbation.

The above declaration in Humanae Vitae never stated that human life was transmitted through the sexual activity of an infertile couple; that would be absurd. It is in fact saying that, in a normative sense, sexual activity is ordered to the transmission of human life.

Nor does sexual intercourse have an intrinsic relationship to the procreation of life, since it's possible to have sexual intercourse naturally without causing a pregnancy.

That's like saying that shooting a basketball is not intrinsically related to making a basket, since it's possible that the shooter miss.

While it is true that the desire for sexual pleasure motivates reproductive activity, that doesn't mean that, for human beings, sex is intrinsically related to reproduction.

Right, which is why I never argued (nor ever would argue) that sex is intrinsically related to reproduction on the grounds that it is motivated by a desire for sexual pleasure.

Besides, if our "intelligent designer" (and I use the word advisedly) really viewed sexual intercourse as intrinsic to the procreation of life, why didn't he (she, it) design human beings in such a way that they could have sex only when the woman is fertile? Why, in other words, didn't he design them like animals who desire sex only when the female is fertile and in heat?

I'm not a proponent of intelligent design. To me, it seems to place too much emphasis on the "how" of creation, as if that really mattered, considering everything God does is good. It also seems to neglect the Christian theological tradition, which has always held to the notion that God, by constantly upholding and sustaining the universe, continues to create it.

I don't know of any male mammals (if there are, there are few) who only desire intercourse when the female is fertile. In any case, the sex drive is an integral part of what it means to be human. It goes well beyond sex: the sex drive regulates and influences aggression, mood, anxiety, focus, personality, etc.

In other words, your question is similar to asking why God made us as bipeds, and not quadrupeds. I simply do not know.

Oh, I know: he wanted to test us, to see if we would obey him. Or is it that he wanted us to reproduce like animals? -- which is the status to which this doctrine reduces us -- viz., the status of stock farm animals, who are mating, not for their own sake, but for the sake of their owner.

Who knows why God did this? It could have been to make sure that children would be sufficiently spaced so that their parents would be better suited to provide for them.

Also, why treat sexual activity as so integral to the human person? We're humans, not chimps; our goal should be to contribute to the common good, to love other people in ways transcending sex, to focus on cultivating virtue, to use our intellect, and to pursue truth. An obsession with sex leads to immoral behavior, the destruction of human relationships, the flourishing of internet pornography, teenage depression-- in sum, the degradation of the human being.

If sex really were considered by the Church to be intrinsically related to reproduction, then why is sex that cannot possibly result in a pregnancy considered acceptable just so long as the inability to become pregnant isn't willed by the respective participants?

Sex that cannot possibly result in pregnancy is not considered acceptable.

If the purpose of sex is procreation, why should an older couple who are no longer fertile not be prohibited from having sex in the same way that an older person who isn't married because he or she can't find a suitable partner is prohibited from having sex, i.e., from masturbating?

Couples that old should not be having sex. Those days are over, as they say. (The use of VIAGRA is symptomatic of a society obsessed with youth and with sexual activity.)

And masturbation is not sex. It's autoeroticism.

What does it matter whether the infertility is willed or not. In neither case, can the purpose of sex be reproduction, since reproduction is impossible.

If conception is quite literally impossible, then the couple shouldn't be willing it as prospectively procreative in the first place. To will something impossible is absurd.

How many Catholic men (priests included) never masturbate?

I do not go around asking people whether or not they masturbate. A more relevant question:

How [can] many Catholic men (priests included) never masturbate?

It's called self-restraint.

I'd be surprised if it were more than a tiny fraction, if that. What better way to engender guilt and to lower one's self-esteem than to forbid something as natural, pleasurable and accessible as masturbation.

What better way to raise one's self-esteem than to prohibit an activity which is, quite simply, ape-like. And I repeat: I do not go around asking people whether or not they masturbate.

I'm surprised the Church didn't forbid ice cream, unless it were required and/or consumed solely for the purpose of making one a better parent. God forbid that it should be eaten simply because it happens to taste good!

Sexual intercourse is pleasurable, but it is also ordered to the higher good of creating new human life. The spiritual and relational dimensions and implications of sex place it far, far above the consumption of ice cream.

In any event, how does one masturbate (or have any form of sex, for that matter) without doing so for self-seeking pleasure? For a man, the sex act is innately pleasurable, and is literally impossible for him to perform unless he is focused on and seeking his own pleasure, even if his doing so is a means to some other end or goal. Any attempt to avoid seeking his own pleasure will render him impotent. If anything can be said to degrade the sexual act, it is the attempt to perform it without seeking one's own pleasure.

Masturbation is not a form of sex. In sexual intercourse, pleasure is of course desired, but it should only be desired as an incidental-- or in any case, secondary-- goal.

Question: What does the Church have against pleasure as an end in itself? The answer is: It does not believe that human beings are ends in themselves or that they should live for their own sake, i.e., for the sake of their own pleasure and happiness. Man's proper goal, according to Catholicism, is abject obedience to the commandments laid down by the Church hierarchy.

Some people, as I've just noticed in the news today, find intercourse with dead horses a pleasurable activity. So not all forms of pleasure ought to be sought after.

The Church is for pleasure, properly understood, as an end in itself: the pleasure of union with God. The Church teaches that men, in living for their own sake, and not out of love for God, act against the consummation of their own happiness. Catholicism, then, is about ordering the man toward God as an end; since this is where the greatest happiness is to be found. The commandments laid down by the Church are followed so that men keep their eyes on God, their source of happiness, and not act in ways which are motivated by indifference to God's love, thus betraying a neglect of their own happiness.

Of course, because sex, according to the Catholic Church, is to be regarded not as an end in itself but only as a means to an end. Its justification is not a person's or couple's own enjoyment, but simply reproduction, i.e., the creation of another human being.

It's justification is not simply reproduction. As I've said before, the Church believes that sex is highly significant as an expression of love between married couples, and that sex has both a unitive and procreative purpose.

Obedience to God in the sacrifice of one's own enjoyment is one's foremost duty and virtue, all of it justified by the most preposterous kind of religious fantasy and superstition. Those who subscribe to this view of life and morality deserve it.

Those who subscribe to this view of life and morality love it, because they love God. And God alone can make us happy.

Post 36

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 9:20pm

GWL,

Is anal sex acceptable by the church as long as the climax occurs vaginally after that?

Post 37

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 10:05pm

As a former Christian, I find Christianity, even Catholicism to be faulty from the ground up.

First, they claim humans have free will, yet some how God ordained the fall of man. That doesn't follow if you accept the first part, which humans have free will since humans still can act otherwise, despite "God's Will."

Second, many Christians, especially Catholics such as Mother Theresa and John Paul II, talked about life as suffering and that all humans should suffer at some level to be 'Christ-like' or at least as a token of respect for Jesus' 'suffering.' Which it wasn't since he arose the third day, duh!

Third, if that follows between the two points made that man was ordained to fall, yet still magically has free will, and that he should suffer in his/her life, then why even have modern medicine? Why not outlaw the damn vaccines, Leibniz? Hmm? I'm not trying to be an ass here, but that's the problem. If A is True, and B is True, in respect to the values of Christiandom, then C is True in regards to anything that makes Humankind's life on Earth more pleasant.

Even the Church has 'cautioned' against research for a vaccine or cure for AIDS. Guess what, L, I got two words for you and the Church: BITE ME. My life, my way. My money, my crap. And it comes down to that. It comes down to the savage's answer to things. If you hit me, I hit you back...HARDER.

Sorry for the venting, but that's what I see as a problem, demanding humankind to dispense with its powers of reason and means to better itself for itself just because a handful of Platonic Realm airheads go around talking about higher ideals. There are no higher ideals, L, than what you can twiddle with your own fingers. That which can you buy with your own money. And that which can you make from the inspirations of your own mind. When you get back to Earth, look me up. Until then, you, Jesus, and Xenu can hover around in your spaceship for all I care!

-- Bridget

Post 38

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 10:24pm

On a side note, how people choose to act is their own business anyways. GWL complains people are having more children out of wedlock than before, can I proof of that prior to 1940? Any real longitudinal records? If not, then can you preface your claims with a warning that these statistics do not reflect a causative pattern, rather a correlative pattern?

What I see here is a really just a complaint against people doing what have done in the past, GWL. People weren't chaste back in the "good old days." They were just more discrete about it. Today, it's almost considered perfectly normal to have affairs, granted I find them problematic as well in that you are breaking a promise that is just as good as breaking a contract with a business partner. But that in itself is not an issue that can be magically resolved by the removal of contraception, rather it must be solved by another set of methods.

First, make marriage a PRIVATE CONTRACT AGAIN. Yes, GWL, you, The Church, and The State can do one thing: BUTT OUT. Let CONSENTING ADULTS set their own terms, for their own lives. If they snagged in that web of promises, good, that will make people more careful not to get married and to keep the real idiots out of it.

Second, it's not the marriage that counts, but rather the pocket book of the parents that count. Most studies I've read point out that no matter if the child is born out of wedlock or not, if the parents are poor as dirt, their kids will tend to be poor as well. In this case, poverty is also linked to bad habits, drug use, unprotected sex, and general laziness [of thought and action]. Also, smarter parents tend to have successful kids too, and they too tend to be economically well off.

Third, if you want to change behavior you have to promote a positive behavior to replace it. Yes, GWL, that's how you raise kids as well. And it too still works on adults who you think may be doing something 'naughty.' If a person sees a positive behavior that gives them a better long term setup over their current behavior that isn't, they'll choose the positive behavior if it's promoted enough. The others that don't just prove they're not up to snuff to your standards and you can leave them to themselves.

-- Bridget

Post 39

Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 12:18pm