Humanae Vitae Debate Part 2

[Popes_Soldier]

This is a continuation of the ongoing debate I am with the dissident Catholic who rejects Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning (NFP)…

I haven’t read this whole thread, but have you asked your friend if he rejects the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, and if so, I’d blatantly ask him how he figures he’s a Catholic if he can reject the official Catechism oublished by the Vatican?

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality (Humanae Vitae, 16). These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether 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” is intrinsically evil (Humanae Vitae, 14):

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality (Familiaris Consortio, 32).

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV

 

[Father_of_9]

As you can tell by my username, I am very familiar with both Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning. My wife and I decided early on that we wanted a large family. We never said how many or when we would have children. We have been blessed with 9 children ages 20 down to 5 months. What we’ve found is that God has always provided for us through the years and still does. Yes, having a large family is challenging, but very rewarding. If we have another child, which is entirely possible, then we’ll continue to trust in the Lord for the grace and guidance we’ll need to be good parents to all of our children.

 

[BruceK]

]Here’s the in my debate with my protagonist on this issue: The morality of murder is objectively knowable, both from the perspective of the observer and the victims. The knowledge of those things that are objectively knowable, like murder, rape, lying, etc., may not depend on immediate direct experience. In the case of ABC, the question is: On what basis does one judge it to be moral or immoral? My position is that those acts that are in conformance with God’s will are moral and those that conflict with God’s will are immoral. That leaves the discernment of just what is in accord with God’s will w.r.t. conjugal intercourse and what conflicts with it . In conjugal intercourse, couples learn from their direct experience and knowledge of conjugal life the two separate roles God that intended for conjugal intercourse to play in marriage. Married Catholics through their (subjective) direct experience and knowledge of conjugal intercourse properly discerned God’s (objectively knowable) will as to the separate ends of conjugal intercourse.
**I replied: And the morality of ABC is not objectionally knowable? **
He replies,The morality of ABC is subjectively known to most married Catholics through their direct experience of the conjugal life, and objectively knowable to those who are honest enough to recognize God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. Or to put it another way, honest enough to re-read the language of the body, spoken by the Creator through His creation of humans, in truth
**Obviously something doesn’t seem to jive right with his position so what would be the best rebuttal to this? **

 

[Vincent]

The morality of ABC is subjectively known to most married Catholics through their direct experience of the conjugal life, and objectively knowable to those who are honest enough to recognize God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. Or to put it another way, honest enough to re-read the language of the body, spoken by the Creator through His creation of humans, in truth

Here’s a letter from a married Catholic who has “direct experience of the conjugal life”. The letter was originally published in the National Catholic Reporter, October 11, 1987 and included in Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later: p. 126-127:

Though my hands are full with children (three) and with work outside the home (retail clerk), I feel moved to write in defense of the sexual sensibilities of those millions of us who are not PhDs or DREs or (Phil) Donahue dissent superstars or even wanna-be’s.

Yes, I was alive and fertile in 1968. I was 19 and knew the pill was a gift from God and Humanae Vitae was a real crock. The pill was going to eliminate teenage pregnancy, marital disharmony and world population problems, bring a new era, etc.

By my five-year reunion (high school), those of us who had been so confident about contraception had gone from euphoria to anger. Nothing seemed to work. I’d been on the pill less than two years before I’d quit. The pill depressed us. Or scared us (especially those of us who were smokers) because of the “stroke” factor. I didn’t want to keep taking it year after year, or on-again, off-again after I broke up with my college lover. So I decided to live a minimally healthy life-style and quit both smoking and oral contraceptives.

The “safer” IUD (copper-T) gave me cramps and heavy periods. I was lucky. A friend of mine got such a ghastly infection from her IUD she lost her uterus, tubes, ovaries—the works. The woman was devastated. She felt like a gutted shell. Now they’ve taken them all off the market.

I tried the diaphragm. Hard to keep motivated on that one. . . . I felt wadded up with junk, inwardly disgusted. I wanted to be delectable, like a Haagen Dazs ice cream cone; instead, I was a spermicidal sump. . . .

            By the 10th high school reunion, my friends were still fiddling with this method and that, they’d have abortions, and/or their marriages were falling apart. Mine almost did.

            Then my husband and I settled on the condom plus periodic abstinence. But we depended on the condom in a way that made it easy to rationalize some "fudging" on abstinence. (. . .) You know what "fudging" can lead to. Thank God I didn’t have an abortion, but I did have one hell of an untimely pregnancy.

            Are you finally getting my point, fantasy-land theologians?

Finally, my husband and I reached a turning point. At a very low point in our marriage, we met some great people who urged us to really give our lives to the Lord and to be chaste in our marriage.

            That blew our minds. We thought it meant "give up sex." That’s not what it means. It means respecting bodily union as a sacred act. It meant acting like a couple in love, a couple in *awe*, not a couple of cats in heat. . . . And I won’t kid you, it was a difficult discipline.

            NFP and a chaste attitude toward sex in marriage opened up a new world for us. It bonded my husband and me in a way that is so deep, so strong, that it’s hard to describe. Sometimes it’s difficult, but that makes us even closer. We revere each other. And when we do come together, we’re like honeymooners.

            Sad to say, I was past 35 when I finally realized that the Church was right after all. Not the grab-your-sincerity-and-slide church  of Charlie Curran, but the real church, the church we encountered through laypeople in the Couple to Couple League, the *Catholic* church. The Church is right about contraception (it stinks), right about marriage (it’s a sacrament), right about human happiness (it flows—no it *floods* when you embrace the will of God). It gave us depth. It opened our hearts to love.

Put that in your graduate seminar and smoke it.
​

This woman’s direct experience of the conjugal life deserves a hearing. This testimony refutes the claims of the Protagonist, whose position becomes too subjective to be of any use.

 

[BruceK]

What is the best estimate of Catholic Couples worldwide who practice Artificial Birth Control(ABC) and those who practice Natural Family Planning (NFP)? Any data, statistics or links for an approximate figure?

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest installment of my debate with my protagonsist on the issue of HV and Caontraception:

Him(Protagonist): it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. The fact that NFP is not 100% effective is irrelevant. <<

Me (BruceK) >> Since you made the claim back it up: show a direct quotation from such a practitioner that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. <<

Him: This is a good example as to just how stupid and dishonest ou are. I did not claim that any practitioner held that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. I said that it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. Do you realy believe that couples practice NFP intending to conceive 1 out of every 50 acts of conjugal intercourse? A third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). <<

Me >> It can never 100% exclude procreation, agreed. <<

Him: Your answer is totally irrelevant to the fact that a third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). HV24 calls on medical science to make it 100% effective. If it becomes 100% effective, is it then immoral? JP II in L&R states unambigiously that NFP excludes procreation. End of story.

Me: HV24:Men of Science- does not call on medical science to make NFP 100% effective. What it actually says is, “It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by study of natural rhythms succeed in deteriming a sufficiently secure as well as a moral basis for the regulation of birth.” That’s not exactly the same thing as sayin 100% effective in excluding procreation and you know it! <<

Him: Logically, it is the same thing. If HV24 did not mean 100%, then what was their limit? 98%? 99%? 99.999%? Whatever their limit, many forms of ABC fall within that limit. If, NFP becomes 100% effective, will the Magisterium condemn it because it is 100% effective in separating the ends of conjugal intercourse?

Me: t’s not logically the same thing and it’s a moot point because it never will be 100% effective in separating the two ends. <<

Him: You can’t credibly assert that natural family planning will never be 100% effective. There is in fact one method that claims to be 100% effective - rigorously practiced. And my point is not a moot point even if NFP could never be 100% effective. You have to dodge the issue and claim it is a moot point because it reduces your arguments w.r.t. conjugal morality to an absurdity - reductio ad absurdem.
But, even if NFP is only 98% effective, your posts still condemn it because the purpose and intent of NFP is to “slam the door on life (procreation)” and to allow couples to enjoy the good of sex for purposes other than procreation. It does so 98% of the time.

Now, if you want to argue that your posts do not condemn NFP because it fails and does not “slam the door on life (procreation)” 2% of the time, then since ABC fails to "slam the door on life (procreation) 3% of the time it is likewise not condemned by your posts.

What specifically is faultly about his reasoning in his arguments and what exactly is the best rebuttal to his arguments? Any feedback will greatly be appreciated.

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as follows So you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.**What would be the best reply to this? **

 

[BruceK]

Maybe you can help me out with this; as many of you know by now I’ve been having this on-going debate with this pro-contraception progagonist and he threw a clever curveball just recently. His words are in bold:
Me: I think the thesis that Humanae Vitae is merely a “personal opinion” of the pope which can be licitly dissented with has lost all credibility among the Catholic faithful, clung to only by notoriously dissident theologians. <<

**Him: Your opinion is refuted by Janet smith’s data which show that 95 % of married American Catholics who practice birth control and a majority of priests reject HV’s edicts on ABC. <<**Me: truth and morality is not determined by majority vote. <<

**Him: No one posted that truth and morality are determined by majority vote. Once again you are tryig to change the issue to avoid embarassment. But, as I have pointed out before, the issue is your statement that HV can be dissented from has lost all credibility among the Catholic faithful, clung to only by notoriously dissident theologians. The fact that 95% of married Catholics in the U.S. abd a majority of priests reject HV’s edicts demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement is false. <<**Me: I said before and I’ll say it again: As far as the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception, the number has no bearing on the morality of the act. <<

**Him: That is not the same as your statement, above. Once again resorting to dishonesty, you are changing your statement. I agree that truth and morality is not determined by majority vote. I also agree that: As far as the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception, the number has no bearing on the morality of the act. But it is false to assert that the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception has no bearing on our understanding of the morality of the act. There is a big difference. My argument is not based on a majority vote, per se, but rather on the fact that the the 95% of married Catholics who reject HV’s edicts have direct experience and knowledge of conjugal life and majority of clergy who also reject HV’s edicts gain indirect knowledge of conjugal life by listening to married couples who have direct experience and knowledge. The celibate clique that inflicted HV on the Church rejected direct and indirect knowledge of conjugal life, and in fact based their decision what they thought would best defend the teaching “authority” of the Magisterium.

It’s fair to ask why the number of Catholics using artificial contraception has a significant bearing on our understanding of the morality of the act. And the reason is that for over 1900 years the Magisterium insisted that procreation was the primary purpose of the conjugal act. But, in the last century as married couples began to compare the Magisterium’s teaching with the reality of conjugal life as they experienced it, they realized that conjugal intercourse served two separate purposes - procreation and unification. They realized that the Magisterium’s 1900 year old teaching was based o a false understanding of conjugal relations. Their knowledge, based on direct experience, is confirmed by the fact that God created humans, unlike other animal species, so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate purposes. God, speaking the language of the body, married Catholics, and a majority of clergy are in agreement on conjugal morality; the celibate clique and their followers reject that position.**

Obviously there is something fishy about his argumentation, so waht exact are his flaws and fallacies, and how do I best address them?:

 

[Father_of_9]

The main point is that artificial birth control has always been contrary to the official teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As a father of nine children, I have first-hand experience in the joys and yes, sacrifices, of having a large family today. Would it be easier for me financially, time-wise, etc. if I had fewer children? Yes. But have my sacrifices of money, time, etc. been worth it? A thousand times yes! Families should reflect the overwhelming generosity of God by being open to the possibility of additional life. What greater accomplishment can one have in life than to help more souls attain Heaven? Yes, couples must be responsible when determining how many children they can raise. But contraception is a dead-end street which leads couples to think only of themselves and maintaining their desired level of comfort. Not only that, it leads to sexual activity becoming an end to itself and the various forms of perversion that can follow. No, contraception is not the answer for couples who wish to follow God in a spirit of faithfulness and humility.

 

[BruceK]

I know much of the teachings contained in Humanae Vitae are based on natural law as it is with the Church’s stand on contraception, so what I’m looking for is the what would be the best summary for the defense of Humanae Vitae based on natural law?

 

[manualman]

People who object to NFP as being exactly the same as contraception OBVIOUSLY have never PRACTICED NFP. Once you live it for a while you are VERY quickly disabused of such a notion. And the protestors KNOW there is a major difference; it is the very reason they are so desperate to avoid the restrictions of HV!

NFP requires the couple to abstain during the fertile time if they wish to avoid pregnancy. This form of fasting and sacrifice is what maintains the spiritual / psychological link between marital sex and procreation even when trying to avoid pregnancy. God quite simply speaks louder when you fast.

Contraception, on the other hand, requires no sacrifice, forces no time of reflection or consideration about one’s reasons for avoiding another child. It is self-perpetuating. It is no coincidence that this modern culture that consistently seeks indulgence and pleasure without commitment or responsibility embraces contraception so wholly. It is not the ‘sense of the faithful’ that has resulted in rejection of HV, it is the ‘sense of modernism’ that has been adopted by most nominal catholics in lieu of actual catholic teaching in our age. (You’ll note a strong correlation between those who reject HV and those who go to confession less than twice a year, never go to adoration, don’t pray the rosary, etc.)

So when somebody asserts that there is no moral difference, ask 'em why they don’t use NFP instead of their condom or pill. No hormones, no awkward pauses in foreplay, no reduction in sensation, no chemical side effects, no latex reaction potential… NFP rocks ABC in every way - except the fasting/abstinance periods. And there’s your difference.

We’ve used NFP for 9.5 years now. No question in my mind that the Church has it right and the protestors are full of it.

 

[BruceK]

**I thought I share you the latest exchange I had with my protagonist(Sub) w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite: **
**BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: “The Church … teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life” (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). << **

Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not “inseparably connected”. HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God’s will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.

**BK >> To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). << **

Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God’s will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.

BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-“a conjugal act imposed on a spouse.” It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<
Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.

**BK >> He goes on to argue that man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life.” << **
Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such…” NFP would not work.

**BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:

1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends
2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end

So obviously there’s nothing “morally neutral” about ABC. << **

Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.

**BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC … would … be immoral. << **

Sub: You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:

1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God’s will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.
2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV’s sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.

**As you can see for yourself he’s using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals you’re more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K **

 

[IWillBeHeard]

Let me tell you about the new rules on here…

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

 

[BruceK]

**I thought I share you the latest exchange I had with my protagonist(Sub) w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite: **
**BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: “The Church … teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life” (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). << **

Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not “inseparably connected”. HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God’s will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.

**BK >> To act otherwise is to “defy the plan and holy will of God” (Hv 13). << **

Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God’s will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.

BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-“a conjugal act imposed on a spouse.” It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<
Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.

**BK >> He goes on to argue that man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life.” << **
Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man “does not have power over his generative faculties as such…” NFP would not work.

**BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:

1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends
2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end

So obviously there’s nothing “morally neutral” about ABC. << **

Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.

**BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC … would … be immoral. << **

Sub: You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:

1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God’s will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.
2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV’s sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.

**As you can see for yourself he’s using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals you’re more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K **

 

[BruceK]

I was recently having a discussion with a person(he goes by the name Sub) about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:
BK>>**Is “morality relative”?? **<<

SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality.

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I (BK) stated:** Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. << **
Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>

 

[BruceK]

I was recently having a discussion with a person(he goes by the name Sub) about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:
BK>>**Is “morality relative”?? **<<

SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality.

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I (BK) stated:** Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. << **
Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>

So what would be the best rply or rebuttal to this?

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest exchange I’ve been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold:
Me: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<

My antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

**What is flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such? **

 

[edwest2]

From Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II:

“It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[BruceK]

Ok, but to be more specific could you please comment on the following quote from my antagonist: " It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle."
Your feedback please. Thank you.

 

[BruceK]

Here’s the latest exchange I’ve been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold:
**how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? **<<

My Antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. artificial birth contol (ABC) like Natural Family Planning(NFP) cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

Ok, but why stop there? Why not legalise abortions under certain circumstances? Some mainline protestant denominations have already done that, and most birth control pills are abortifacient in of themselves. So where do you draw that clear line? <<

He replies: You draw the line between those actions which are evil and those which are not: between killing an unborn fetus (evil) and artificial birth control which is not.

What is specifically flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such?