Natural-Law Defense of the Moral Neutrality of Contraception, in the Spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas

[Paul_Rimmer]

For clarification:

However, since this is an application of a basic principle to our day and age, even if it were for all ages, it would still be a matter of Ecclesiastic Discipline, and not a matter of faith or morals [non sequitur].

What is the non sequitur? I don’t understand; this statement seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[so you are presuming that the purpose of the marital act is the begetting of children is an indemonstrable first principle?? - why would you (anyone) think that?]

That is not what I’m saying. What I’m trying to say is that it follows generally from first principles (as “do not kill”). “Be fruitful and multiply” is not applied to particular actions in the way of a disciplinary ordinance (as “do not eat a particular sort of meat on a particular day”, or “refrain from certain types of dance”, etc.) which deals with moral principles, but on specific act-by-act and circumstance-by-circumstance applications.

Nevertheless, the question stands: what two or more principles do you think “be fruitful and multiply” depend upon?

[so, “if a matter of prudence, then merely disciplinary (not a matter of morals)”?? - non sequitur - to act against prudence (imprudently) is to act against reason is to act against the moral law]

I don’t understand your point here.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Fair enough. I will assume that you have retracted your earlier claims and become a hardened fundamentalist about this issue and not bother trying to further rationally engage with you on it. I do believe, however, that you did not reply at all to my objection (and a fortiori you didn’t reply well).

I think the nature of the conversation is becoming too polemical for my taste. Please disregard my questions for clarification (I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts here). I will make changes, based on your statements, that I see worth making.

In the future, I think it best we don’t continue this conversation about contraception. Of course, you are welcome to think (or say) anything you wish about me. I hope we can both keep each other in our prayers, and I have great admiration for the passion with which you defend what you believe to be true.

 

[SonCatcher]

I think the nature of the conversation is becoming too polemical for my taste. Please disregard my questions for clarification (I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts here). I will make changes, based on your statements, that I see worth making.

In the future, I think it best we don’t continue this conversation about contraception. Of course, you are welcome to think (or say) anything you wish about me. I hope we can both keep each other in our prayers, and I have great admiration for the passion with which you defend what you believe to be true.

I hope that the thread is not totally finished here.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I hope that the thread is not totally finished here.

Not at all. I’d very-much like to see your objection and argument against contraception. This is an area about which I am fully willing to reconsider.

I am, to clarify, done communicating with Betterave about this. It seems that we have clashing personalities about this issue, and our communication seemed to be slipping into polemics and invective, on both sides. I’ve never done well with the polemical tone (I take offense far too easily, like a living china shop), so I’ll avoid responding to him (only for this thread); I look forward to what you and others have to say about this issue.

 

[Betterave]

I think the nature of the conversation is becoming too polemical for my taste. Please disregard my questions for clarification (I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts here). I will make changes, based on your statements, that I see worth making.

In the future, I think it best we don’t continue this conversation about contraception. Of course, you are welcome to think (or say) anything you wish about me. I hope we can both keep each other in our prayers, and I have great admiration for the passion with which you defend what you believe to be true.

Thank you for your kind comments, Paul. I must insist that I have no desire to think or say anything about you as such. Not that I don’t care about you as a person, but my comments are strictly what I view as reasonable rational responses to your claims and arguments, which were ostensibly(!) offered precisely in order to elicit criticism. I’m sorry you can’t receive them in that spirit. I think you have some very poorly written and reasoned arguments, but I still welcome your contributions here and consider your own polemical contributions here to be potentially valuable (not so valuable if you refuse to respond to objections though - and this observation is obviously not about you specifically, it’s true of anyone defending a controversial view).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I understand this.

My issue is that I really think I answered your question rationally and well.

A statement of dubious infalliblity might as well not be considered infallible, if the purpose of infallibility is to provide certainty. This is because, when the infallibility of the statement is dubious, certainty is exactly what is not being provided.

This argument seems clear to me, seems to me to answer your questions well. If you disagreed with the argument, or even addressed the argument itself, or if you argued about the premise (maybe the purpose of infallibility isn’t to provide certainty), I’d respect that. You completely ignored the argument, and others who have seen this argument have had no trouble understanding this argument. Indeed, some of them have come up with potentially effective objections to this argument. You haven’t. Instead, your responses suggest to me that you weren’t interested in the truth or reason of this argument, but rather in “winning” something.

I’m not interested in that. I welcome criticism, but this and other statements indicate to me that you are here less to criticize and more to simply establish your own position. From your statements, it is plain to me that you haven’t even really thought much about my argument.

I’m not interested in thoughtless polemics. For these reasons, and not for any sort of fundamentalism or for weaknesses in my argument, do I choose not to engage you on this topic.

(Glaring and serious weaknesses in my argument are not here being denied, but are on the contrary candidly admitted. These weaknesses are being worked on.)

Thank you for your kind comments, Paul. I must insist that I have no desire to think or say anything about you as such. Not that I don’t care about you as a person, but my comments are strictly what I view as reasonable rational responses to your claims and arguments, which were ostensibly(!) offered precisely in order to elicit criticism. I’m sorry you can’t receive them in that spirit. I think you have some very poorly written and reasoned arguments, but I still welcome your contributions here and consider your own polemical contributions here to be potentially valuable (not so valuable if you refuse to respond to objections though - and this observation is obviously not about you specifically, it’s true of anyone defending a controversial view).

 

[Betterave]

I understand this.

My issue is that I really think I answered your question rationally and well.

A statement of dubious infalliblity might as well not be considered infallible, if the purpose of infallibility is to provide certainty. This is because, when the infallibility of the statement is dubious, certainty is exactly what is not being provided.

This argument seems clear to me, seems to me to answer your questions well. If you disagreed with the argument, or even addressed the argument itself, or if you argued about the premise (maybe the purpose of infallibility isn’t to provide certainty), I’d respect that. You completely ignored the argument, and others who have seen this argument have had no trouble understanding this argument.

Indeed, some of them have come up with potentially effective objections to this argument. You haven’t. Instead, your responses suggest to me that you weren’t interested in the truth or reason of this argument, but rather in “winning” something.

Sed contra: Your argument is not clear, I criticized it very specifically, and you failed to respond to my criticism.

I will address the following comments to whomever else might be reading this:

Is it not clear that if a statement is made that even just *possibly *should be interpreted as being intended as teaching the infallibility of a doctrine, then that statement should effectively be regarded by a faithful son of the Church and follower of Christ as effectively being infallible? If I can merely doubt a statements being taught infallibly, then I should not declare myself intractably opposed to the regarding the statement as infallible, as Paul has done here. Indeed, if I recognize that it is even possible that a doctrine is taught as being infallible, then it is hardly fitting a disciple of Christ and his Church to claim that that doctrine might as well be treated as not infallible, and further that one is within one’s rights to disregard the Church’s clearly and firmly reiterated teaching (even in a ‘purely intellectual’ way and out of (transparently unreasonable) motives of ‘charity’) and to try to persuade others to do likewise (which teaching, again, remember, might even be best understood as actually being taught infallibly! - notwithstanding that there may be doubt about this).

Here is what I take to be Paul’s non sequitur here:

The purpose of [statements of] infallibility is to provide certainty; therefore a dubious statement of infalliblity might as well be considered as a fallible statement. [This is because, when the infallibility of the statement is dubious, certainty is exactly what is not being provided.] The general form of Paul’s assertion here is:

if X can be doubted, then effectively not-X
Is there anyone who cannot see that this is a non sequitur?

The purpose of a statement of infallibility is still to provide certainty, regardless of whether it has been expressed in a way in which some may feel gives reason for doubting its status as a statement of infallibility.

I’m not interested in that. I welcome criticism, but this and other statements indicate to me that you are here less to criticize and more to simply establish your own position. From your statements, it is plain to me that you haven’t even really thought much about my argument.

I’m not interested in thoughtless polemics. For these reasons, and not for any sort of fundamentalism or for weaknesses in my argument, do I choose not to engage you on this topic.

(Glaring and serious weaknesses in my argument are not here being denied, but are on the contrary candidly admitted. These weaknesses are being worked on.)

Paul, seriously: when you fail to respond to questions about your position, why is this? Is it because you have dismissed them as ‘thoughtless polemics,’ although in your great charity (sorry for the sarcasm) you often choose to forego pointing this out?

To be perfectly honest with you, it is plain to me that you are the one who hasn’t really thought much about your argument (you appear to effectively grant this), and that’s what I’m trying to help you do. Your claim here that this is true of me seems plainly disingenuous, given the fact that you have apparently granted that some of my criticisms here have in fact been accurate, and that you have not understood others. You have already gently chastized me once for not reading your argument - in response to my direct criticism of the very argument which you had assumed I had not read! I do think these facts should give you pause before making such assertions in the future.

 

[Betterave]

Paul’s non sequitur:
if X can be doubted, then effectively not-X

In case it’s not clear, for Paul’s claim,

X = “P is taught infallibly”

and in this case,

P = “contracepted intercourse is intrinsically morally disordered”

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

“If, for a given X, all statements of the form “X is certain” are not certain, then effectively X is not certain.” That’s even a stronger statement than I desire to make, but it is definitely a rational thing to hold.

The even weaker statement I made in my argument is effectively this:

If the statement “X is certain” is not certain, then that statement is not by itself a good basis upon which to establish certainty.

About everything else, betterave, people are welcome to form their own opinion as to how well you’ve read my arguments. I already have.

 

[Betterave]

“If, for a given X, all statements of the form “X is certain” are not certain, then effectively X is not certain.” That’s even a stronger statement than I desire to make, but it is definitely a rational thing to hold.

That is:
If for a given “P is infallibly taught”, ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is in all cases not certain, then effectively “P is infallibly taught” is not certain.

That is:
If for a given X, Y is in no case certain, then effectively X is not certain.

(not rational)

The even weaker statement I made in my argument is effectively this:

If the statement “X is certain” is not certain, then that statement is not by itself a good basis upon which to establish certainty.

So:
If the statement ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is not certain, then ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is not by itself a good basis upon which to establish certainty (and presumably you mean here not just certainty, but ‘…the certainty of “P is infallibly taught”’)…

However: the non-establishment of the certainty of “P is infallibly taught” does not amount to the effective establishment of “P is not infallibly taught.” I repeat: this is a non sequitur.
(Does anyone else not see this?? Anyone see it??)

About everything else, betterave, people are welcome to form their own opinion as to how well you’ve read my arguments. I already have.

Well clearly you have. But you have a functioning intellect, so obviously it is not impossible that you should come to reform your opinion on the basis of clear evidence offered to you - which would probably require your reading what I write a little more carefully. An antecedent willingness to do so, to reform one’s opinions in the face of evidence, is quite necessary in philosophical dialogue (I’m sure you know this). Pax Christi tecum, fratre.

 

[Betterave]

For Descartes fans, it is interesting to note that Paul’s argument might have made sense if it had been part of the early *Meditations *project to doubt all that can be doubted, to dismiss as though it were false (i.e., Decartes is performing a thought experiment, not ascertaining what is actually reasonable to believe) anything that cannot clearly and distinctly (indubitably, with certainty) be seen to be true - but that is clearly not the context in which Paul’s claims are being made.

 

[Betterave]

So:
If the statement ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is not certain, then ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is not by itself a good basis upon which to establish certainty (and presumably you mean here not just certainty, but ‘…the certainty of “P is infallibly taught”’)…

However: the non-establishment of the certainty of “P is infallibly taught” does not amount to the effective establishment of “P is not infallibly taught.” I repeat: this is a non sequitur.

(Does anyone else not see this?? Anyone see it??)

I’ve made logical errors before. If anyone sees that I’ve made one here, please do point it out.

Also I forgot to mention: Paul’s original formulation seems unnecessarily awkward and very ill-apposite since no one has affirmed the statement he conjures up:

Y = ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain.’

Instead of introducing the statement “’“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is uncertain” (awkward!), it seems he should have just accepted my original formulation for the sake of both elegance and accuracy.

 

[SonCatcher]

Paul,

My argument in posts 93-95 is in answer to the assertion in your thesis that Church teaching on contraception is primarily concerned with discipline, inferring that the moral argument is a derivation of the disciplinary teaching. My argument is that the reverse is the case. Namely, that the teaching is primarily moral in nature and that disciplinary teachings are merely manifestations of the deeper moral teaching. The core of my argument is exegetical in nature due to high barriers I perceived in the course of dialog. Specifically, an aversion to accept as final any statement other than one made by our Savior, Himself. I sought to entirely limit the argument to definition and application. The exegesis is already complete so what follows is mainly a guide to understanding it (the whole thing is on page 7; I have linked specific posts as needed).

The beginning of Mark 7 shows Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their emphasis of discipline over the commandments. After rebuking them, he explains the teaching with the passage quoted in post 93. Plainly, Jesus is more concerned with what comes from inside the heart than that which is outside only.

The list of sins that Jesus gives to his apostles at the conclusion of the passage do not refer to specific actions. Rather, this is a conceptual list akin to the “Seven Deadly Sins.” I selected two particular sins from that list for definition in post 94. Porneiai is demonstrated to refer broadly to sexual sin while aselgeia is demonstrated to refer to self-serving (sexual) sin. I chose, at this time, to limit the exegesis to aselgeia because it seems more straightforward than the connection to porneiai. (NOTE: I do think that contraception can be shown to be porneiai through Natural Law-based analysis. Indeed, my initial personal reason for avoiding contraception follows such reasoning. However, that route did not seem expedient for our purposes in this thread,)

At that point, I encountered a difficulty in that your given definition of contraception lacked precision and could be applied equally to practices that are condemned and those which are allowed. Thus, I started post 95 with refinement and separation of the two categories.

The first subset, which I continued to call contraception, includes artificial means (barriers, drugs) and those techniques (withdrawal, oral and manual stimulation, etc) which couples use to engage in sexual activity even during the fertile time, yet without the chance of pregnancy. I expressed this with the definition: Contraception allows a couple to seek sexual gratification while avoiding pregnancy.

The second subset, which I now call NFP, includes any method of determining the time of fertility in order for the couple to avoid sexual activity during that time. This is permitted by the Church. This is expressed by the definition: NFP allows a couple to avoid pregnancy by periodically abstaining.

Having defined contraception and NFP thus, I then sought to apply the words of Jesus to each. Contraception, being self-gratifying, is clearly included in the class of sin that Jesus calls aselgeia. NFP, by not being self-gratifying, does not fall under that sin.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’ve made logical errors before. If anyone sees that I’ve made one here, please do point it out.

Also I forgot to mention: Paul’s original formulation seems unnecessarily awkward and very ill-apposite since no one has affirmed the statement he conjures up:

Y = ‘“P is infallibly taught” is certain.’

Instead of introducing the statement “’“P is infallibly taught” is certain’ is uncertain” (awkward!), it seems he should have just accepted my original formulation for the sake of both elegance and accuracy.

Betterave, please consider your posts more carefully. Some of your statements seem a smidge less than charitable.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, please consider your posts more carefully. Some of your statements seem a smidge less than charitable.

John, do you consider Paul’s implication that my arguments are “thoughtless polemics” to be charitable? How about accurate? Do you think it is wrong to defend one’s arguments from unjust charges? Ought I to let ad hominems and red herrings stand? I guess we all have different ideas about charity (I try to follow the example of our Lord) - I’ll do my best! If you would like to point out to me specifically where I’ve been uncharitable, I’d be glad to consider it. Send me a private message if you think that would be more appropriate.

Could you answer my question? Can you point out any error in my arguments? Please do alert me if you think I’ve produced any “thoughtless polemics” - I really would like to know about them, not just be accused of them.

Peace.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

A question…

Would you require the Pope to say…“The Church infallibly believes that Christ is the Son of God?”

I do not believe that any Pope has declared that this is “Infallible” teaching?

Is this declaration required by you to know that it is so?

Why not…?

P.S.
catholic-pages.com/morality/

 

[SonCatcher]

John, do you consider Paul’s implication that my arguments are “thoughtless polemics” to be charitable?

no

How about accurate? Do you think it is wrong to defend one’s arguments from unjust charges? Ought I to let ad hominems and red herrings stand?

not necessarily - I do think we should tread lightly when seeking help another change his line of thinking

I guess we all have different ideas about charity (I try to follow the example of our Lord) - I’ll do my best! If you would like to point out to me specifically where I’ve been uncharitable, I’d be glad to consider it. Send me a private message if you think that would be more appropriate.

Could you answer my question? Can you point out any error in my arguments? Please do alert me if you think I’ve produced any “thoughtless polemics” - I really would like to know about them, not just be accused of them.

Peace.

For the most part, I haven’t been following the other conversations in this thread. The post quoted did seem to mark a degradation of civility, however. I apologize for embarrassing you and will keep particular criticisms to the PM system henceforth.

Pax

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Would you require the Pope to say…“The Church infallibly believes that Christ is the Son of God?”

No, but it would be helpful if the statement were made more strongly than in Humanae Vitae, such as with the qualifiers mentioned in (I believe) Post 70. The stronger the language, the better.

Because the language in Humanae Vitae appears to me to be weaker even than some statements theologians generally agree are not ex cathedra, I’m not accepting any statement from Humanae Vitae as infallible (I’m not that confident). However, there could be other good arguments for the infallibility of the teaching on artificial contraception (maybe as a part of the Ordinary Magisterium) or at least for its being true (such as natural law arguments).

If the Pope does eventually come out with a stronger statement, I’ll have to abandon this line of argument and try another. I may already have to, given what SonCatcher has written (or, if his argument is strong enough, I may have to abandon the idea altogether, and accept Rome’s position).

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

No, but it would be helpful if the statement were made more strongly than in Humanae Vitae, such as with the qualifiers mentioned in (I believe) Post 70. The stronger the language, the better.

Because the language in Humanae Vitae appears to me to be weaker even than some statements theologians generally agree are not ex cathedra, I’m not accepting any statement from Humanae Vitae as infallible (I’m not that confident). However, there could be other good arguments for the infallibility of the teaching on artificial contraception (maybe as a part of the Ordinary Magisterium) or at least for its being true (such as natural law arguments).

If the Pope does eventually come out with a stronger statement, I’ll have to abandon this line of argument and try another. I may already have to, given what SonCatcher has written (or, if his argument is strong enough, I may have to abandon this line altogether).

I am fairly new to Catholicism, but my understanding is that the Pope, when teaching on Moral issues, is infallible. For me, that means that a written document such as Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubi are infallible as they are morale issues and he took the time to teach us about them, not just preach, but teach.

I do not believe that abortion is acceptable. I believe that the Church is correct in this teaching. Do you believe it to be infallible teaching? Can the church in the future allow for abortion? Can we pick and choose? As a prior Lutheran I don’t particularly like reconciliation, however I do now believe that it is correct teaching. Sometimes being correct does not make something enjoyable.

I think that the lack of acceptance of Humanae Vitae and the embracing of the Pill and Condoms are all part of the same defiance by many of the faithful that teenagers have towards natural laws that their parents want for them. They can justify almost any behavior if they like it. Speed limits, designer drugs, “Protected Sex”. If a child wants to walk in the worst parts of town would a parent not say this is wrong? The child can still do so, but may face consequences for this defiance or decision. Some parents let kids do what ever they want. These poor children have no moral compass to guide them and they too will have consequences. The same as people that embrace contraception will have to face the consequences of failure of these man made devices and any choices they will subsequently have to make. What will they choose? Statistics say they will choose death. Where contraception is planted abortion grows. Defiance often ends in larger sin.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I am fairly new to Catholicism, but my understanding is that the Pope, when teaching on Moral issue, is infallible. For me that means that a written document such as Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubi are infallible as they are morale issues and he took the time to teach us about them, not just preach, but teach.

I think you are in a minority amongst practical Catholics (those under the authority of Rome (UAR) both in belief and action), and definitely amongst theologians. This is, in part, because your position makes it so certain statements (such as on the burning of heretics) must be accepted as infallible.

I do not believe that abortion is acceptable. I believe that the Church is correct in this teaching.

Me too

Do you believe it to be infallible teaching?

Nope. I don’t think Catholics UAR generally would think it is.

Can the church in the future allow for abortion?

Members of the Church, even the Pope, as I believe, can allow for anything, because they’re not ever infallible anymore. For Catholics UAR, this is a harder question.

But more to the point, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was true before it was infallibly declared. Maybe the teaching on abortion will be infallible at some point. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still true.