Augustine, contraception, and feminist theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter bookgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bookgirl

Guest
I’m in kind of an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about birth control. She’s a fallen away Catholic who either doesn’t, or refuses to, understand or acknowledge absolute truth. I mean we’re talking the depths of the depths of moral relativism here. As far as contraception (and her general opinion about the Church’s “attitude about sex”) she’s throwing a lot of “it’s Augustine’s faulth” and “you need to read Elizabeth Johnson” at me. I’ve read Confessions and am aware of the general history of Augustine but I’d hardly call myself a scholar when it comes to him. Any suggestions on what exactly to expect from this school of thought as far as argument? And I know that Johnson’s book was formally tagged by the bishops as inauthentic Catholic teaching but I haven’t read anything of hers. Tips on what to read? I need to have some sort of response within the next week or so. Thanks!!

p.s. I did suggest some commentaries on Theology of the Body and I’m familiar with Christopher West’s works (have completely read the easier books of his, about halfway through the actual full commentary).
 
In my view it is impossible to understand or accept the Catholic view on contraception except on faith.

The series of steps in Catholic thinking simply fail to impress almost anyone not predisposed to accept them because ‘the church teaches them’. if you summarises them, they go something like this:
  • there is natural law; it is wrong to break natural laws; there is a difference between sex that is ‘open to procreation’ in that nothing has been actively ‘put in the way’ and sex that is not; natural law requires that each individual act of sex be ‘open’ to procreation, even where procreation is impossible; timing sex to avoid sperm and egg meeting is natural while using other methods is not; and, finally; all this is somehow important.
I predict that you will never convince your friend of this unless she reverts to Catholicism.
 
I would recommend reading two Papal encyclicals as a priority. That way, you get the logic of the Church’s stance on birth control straight from the hose’s mouth.

First up, Humanae Vitae by Paul VI.

Then Veritatus splendor by John Paul II.

Thefirsat explains the nuts and bolts of the issue. The second puts the issue into the context of he Natural Law, which underpins Church doctrine and this particular issue. The second encyclical is a long and sometimes dry read, but it should fall into place, for your purposes, at section 80, second paragraph.

There is also a good EWTN article on the issue here.
 
@hokomai: I get where you are coming from, but I suggest you need to remember that all Christian ecclesial communities were opposed to contraception until this century. The Comstock laws in the U.S. were enacted by Protestant legislatures. Further, such various figures as Gandhi, T.S. Eliot, and Teddy Roosevelt all opposed contraception, not necessarily for the reasons propsed by the CC, but still.

@bookgirl: Augustine must be read closely to see what he is actually saying, and to what argument he is responding, in my opinion. For instance, he can be made to sound very anti-NFP until you realize he is responding to Manichieans who had a totally different world view (now, he may really have been anti-NFP, but that issue was never before him, and I do think it likely that he would submitted to Church teaching).There are probably numerous threads here on CAF. I think the poster Cfrancis had a really good explanation, with citations, in one thread, but he has a lot of posts so it may be hard to search.

Can’t help you with feminist theology or Ms. Johnson, though.
 
John21652 said:
I would recommend reading two Papal encyclicals as a priority. That way, you get the logic of the Church’s stance on birth control straight from the hose’s mouth.

First up, Humanae Vitae by Paul VI.

Then Veritatus splendor by John Paul II.

Thefirsat explains the nuts and bolts of the issue. The second puts the issue into the context of he Natural Law, which underpins Church doctrine and this particular issue. The second encyclical is a long and sometimes dry read, but it should fall into place, for your purposes, at section 80, second paragraph.

There is also a good EWTN article on the issue here.
Click to expand...
I need these suggestions, so thank you for that! She’s really stuck on Augustine though so I was kind of looking for someone who might know some of the typical arguments from, by her constant mention of Elizabeth Johnson, what I’m assuming is a modern feminist theological standpoint? Or are those two unrelated and she’s just throwing both at me at the same time. I have a basic grasp of the reasoning from the natural law point of view, and I have read portions of Humanae Vitae, though mostly through references in other works and not anywhere close to it in its entirety. Veritatus Splendor I haven’t read at all. So thanks!
 
choose_to_love said:
@hokomai: I get where you are coming from, but I suggest you need to remember that all Christian ecclesial communities were opposed to contraception until this century. The Comstock laws in the U.S. were enacted by Protestant legislatures. Further, such various figures as Gandhi, T.S. Eliot, and Teddy Roosevelt all opposed contraception, not necessarily for the reasons propsed by the CC, but still.

@bookgirl: Augustine must be read closely to see what he is actually saying, and to what argument he is responding, in my opinion. For instance, he can be made to sound very anti-NFP until you realize he is responding to Manichieans who had a totally different world view (now, he may really have been anti-NFP, but that issue was never before him, and I do think it likely that he would submitted to Church teaching).There are probably numerous threads here on CAF. I think the poster Cfrancis had a really good explanation, with citations, in one thread, but he has a lot of posts so it may be hard to search.

Can’t help you with feminist theology or Ms. Johnson, though.
Click to expand...
Although I know I need to do more than a week’s worth of research and study to really understand all of this, your info on Augustine above is the kind of insight I’m looking for right at this second. I don’t want to “cheat” my way through it, but I don’t really know how I’m going to avoid some of that within a small amount of time.
 
St Augustine was a Saint. He was not a Pope, his writings are not infallible doctrine or dogma. He was an example in his conversion and a wise man.

Go to the OFFICIAL documents of the Church (www.vatican.va).
 
Castello said:
St Augustine was a Saint. He was not a Pope, his writings are not infallible doctrine or dogma. He was an example in his conversion and a wise man.

Go to the OFFICIAL documents of the Church (www.vatican.va).
Click to expand...
I did think about bringing this up, but I didn’t know if it would confuse the issue or not. I don’t want to paint a picture of Augustine vs. the Church for her to pounce on either. I think I will probably still try to fit it in there without making a huge deal out of it? I’m not sure.
 
bookgirl said:
As far as contraception (and her general opinion about the Church’s “attitude about sex”) she’s throwing a lot of “it’s Augustine’s faulth” and “you need to read Elizabeth Johnson” at me.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth Johnson has written several books, and articles as well. Knowing exactly how your friend considers Johnson to be in support of her views would probably help.
 
Hokomai said:
In my view it is impossible to understand or accept the Catholic view on contraception except on faith.
Click to expand...
That’s about what slave owners said about abolitionists. You rather badly under-estimate the power of inculturation.

In lay terms, catholic teaching can be quite simple and free of theological lingo. Human sexuality is not a set of merely incidentally related subtopics, but a magnificently inter-related ecosystem of topics (monogamy/marriage, intercourse, fertility, etc). Attempts to forcibly pry apart these topics and treat them separately are doomed to morally and socially disasterous outcomes. This has always been catholic teaching. What is amazing to me is that people can live admist the wreckage of our culture and NOT see the truth of this!
 
manualman said:
That’s about what slave owners said about abolitionists. You rather badly under-estimate the power of inculturation.

In lay terms, catholic teaching can be quite simple and free of theological lingo. Human sexuality is not a set of merely incidentally related subtopics, but a magnificently inter-related ecosystem of topics (monogamy/marriage, intercourse, fertility, etc). Attempts to forcibly pry apart these topics and treat them separately are doomed to morally and socially disasterous outcomes. This has always been catholic teaching. What is amazing to me is that people can live admist the wreckage of our culture and NOT see the truth of this!
Click to expand...
I am not sure I appreciate the slave owner analogy - and is it in any case true?

I like your ecosystem idea. I had not thought of Catholic belief in that way before. I think that your point may reinforce mine though: it is hard to argue point by point to the whole ecosystem, which in my view is accepted by Catholics not because it has persuaded them, but because they have chosen to believe. I agree entirely that opposition to contraception is a very long-standing Christian belief. Many years ago I read Noonan’s book on the history of Church attitudes to contraception (I was strangely studious in my 20s) and it certainly assured me of the antiquity of the teaching
 
It’s an analogy of principle, not degree. I’m not asserting that enslaving a person is morally the same as using a condom. But the process by which an entire culture has rationalized it is similar.

And yes, it is true, especially in regards to the Quakers who were the abolitionist champions. Most of the rest of American society considered their convictions on the matter to be peculiar religious sentiment, not serious rational argument.

Think about it, your average southerner circa 1800 wasn’t an overall evil person. The culture they lived in was cleverly contrived to make it seem like they really were doing this poor, lesser, degenerate form of near-human a favor by providing them with shelter, food, order, discipline and honest work. Clearly (to whites) blacks were incapable of being more than savages left to their own devices. What a mercy to give them the dignity of living in civilization instead of savagery…

This was all bigotry, of course, but it was a bigotry of ignorance in many cases, not malice. The way in which modern Americans blithely assume that sex, marriage and fertility can be treated as separate and unrelated topics is a similarly unexamined bad assumption.
 
Dale_M said:
Elizabeth Johnson has written several books, and articles as well. Knowing exactly how your friend considers Johnson to be in support of her views would probably help.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure. Johnson was only mentioned in an exchange online. She was wondering if I’d read Johnson as she thought it was a good “alternative Catholic opinion” which made me really want to read it, let me tell you. :rolleyes:
 
bookgirl said:
I did think about bringing this up, but I didn’t know if it would confuse the issue or not. I don’t want to paint a picture of Augustine vs. the Church for her to pounce on either. I think I will probably still try to fit it in there without making a huge deal out of it? I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
Who said pitting St Augustine against the Church?

The good Saint wrote his opinions. They are not the gospel.

Put it this way, let’s say the Holy Father states that lima beans are the most horrible thing on this earth, he even writes letters directing his cooks not to every serve lima beans in the Vatican and he makes lima beans illegal in all of Vatican state.

That still does not mean that lima beans are sinful or that lima beans are contrary to the teaching of the Church.
 
Castello said:
Who said pitting St Augustine against the Church?

The good Saint wrote his opinions. They are not the gospel.

Put it this way, let’s say the Holy Father states that lima beans are the most horrible thing on this earth, he even writes letters directing his cooks not to every serve lima beans in the Vatican and he makes lima beans illegal in all of Vatican state.

That still does not mean that lima beans are sinful or that lima beans are contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
It’d sure put me off lima beans! 😃
 
I believe the reason that people fixate upon Augustine is that he is the only Church Father they have any knowledge of. Broader reading will demonstrate that his views on must subjects were pretty much those of all the other Patristic thinkers as well.

As to natural law arguments, they are in Plato and Aristotle, and Stoicism too in varying degrees. And educated opinion in the Greco-Roman world was aware of the concept. It may also be worth pointing out that educated Pagans had very little difficulty with Christian sexual ethics. What they found offensive was the idea of the Incarnation and that the Supreme Creator God could take on human nature. The great adversary of Christianity, the Emperor Julian seems to have admired Christian sexual ethics; what he objected to was the idea that a “barbarian” religion was replacing Hellenism.
 
bookgirl said:
I’m in kind of an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about birth control. She’s a fallen away Catholic who either doesn’t, or refuses to, understand or acknowledge absolute truth. I mean we’re talking the depths of the depths of moral relativism here. As far as contraception (and her general opinion about the Church’s “attitude about sex”) she’s throwing a lot of “it’s Augustine’s faulth” and “you need to read Elizabeth Johnson” at me. I’ve read Confessions and am aware of the general history of Augustine but I’d hardly call myself a scholar when it comes to him. Any suggestions on what exactly to expect from this school of thought as far as argument? And I know that Johnson’s book was formally tagged by the bishops as inauthentic Catholic teaching but I haven’t read anything of hers. Tips on what to read? I need to have some sort of response within the next week or so. Thanks!!

p.s. I did suggest some commentaries on Theology of the Body and I’m familiar with Christopher West’s works (have completely read the easier books of his, about halfway through the actual full commentary).
Click to expand...
You say she is fallen away. Is she still Christian?

Much like Monica, maybe you need to less talk to your friend about God and more to God about your friend
 
Castello said:
Who said pitting St Augustine against the Church?

The good Saint wrote his opinions. They are not the gospel.

Put it this way, let’s say the Holy Father states that lima beans are the most horrible thing on this earth, he even writes letters directing his cooks not to every serve lima beans in the Vatican and he makes lima beans illegal in all of Vatican state.

That still does not mean that lima beans are sinful or that lima beans are contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean that I would pitt him against the Church or that you even could, I just didn’t know if that was the best point at which to mention that because i didn’t want her to get the impression that you could. Does that make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top