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

[Betterave]

I do think we should tread lightly when seeking help another change his line of thinking

A general remark (not a personal one): it is not always possible or advisable to tread lightly. When dealing with a bull in a china shop, for example, treading lightly may not be helpful if the bull has already started smashing things. It can hardly be said that Jesus was much of a ‘tip-toer’ - can it?

 

[SonCatcher]

A general remark (not a personal one): it is not always possible or advisable to tread lightly. When dealing with a bull in a china shop, for example, treading lightly may not be helpful if the bull has already started smashing things. It can hardly be said that Jesus was much of a ‘tip-toer’ - can it?

I do recall a certain incident at the money changing tables.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

The statement was about the infallibility of the pope on teaching faith and morals, not on everything. Even if a pope ever prescribed burning at the stake as a punishment (a dubious assertion as every pope ultimately wants every sinner and heretic to return to God and the Church - a proposition that is unlikely for one who is executed), it would not be a teaching on faith or morals. Thus, it would plainly be fallible and subject to later revision.

Jeff’s statement also does not place him in the minority of practical Catholics. I think you are confusing nominal Catholics (aka CINO) for this assertion.

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

Practical Catholics do believe the teaching against abortion is infallible. Nominal Catholics, OTOH, may think anything is changeable.

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.

The correct teaching on the Immaculate Conception was infallible even before it was explicitly declared to be so. There was just some misunderstanding over what it was until the declaration. The declaration cleared up the misunderstanding.

 

[Betterave]

The statement was about the infallibility of the pope on teaching faith and morals, not on everything. Even if a pope ever prescribed burning at the stake as a punishment (a dubious assertion as every pope ultimately wants every sinner and heretic to return to God and the Church - a proposition that is unlikely for one who is executed), it would not be a teaching on faith or morals. Thus, it would plainly be fallible and subject to later revision.

Jeff’s statement also does not place him in the minority of practical Catholics. I think you are confusing nominal Catholics (aka CINO) for this assertion.
Practical Catholics do believe the teaching against abortion is infallible [infallibly taught]. Nominal Catholics, OTOH, may think anything is changeable.

Since the question has been raised as to what ‘most Catholics’ believe, it will not be entirely irrelevant if I voice my full Catholic agreement with John’s comments here.

The correct teaching on the Immaculate Conception was infallible even before it was explicitly declared to be so. There was just some misunderstanding over what it was until the declaration. The declaration cleared up the misunderstanding.

I would prefer to say that IC was simply true prior to its being infallibly declared a dogma. (As I understand, ‘infallibility’ refers to the acts of a person, not to the status of a doctrine.) The declaration simply established a particular ‘juridical’ standing for the dogma (it seems to me) - i.e.: this truth of the faith is now solemnly established, although with the recognition that it has been, historically, a subject of legitimate theological debate amongst orthodox theologians (unlike the cases of contraception or abortion, for which no equivalent formal declaration is required in order for the relevant Church teaching to be recognized as infallible).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Suncatcher,

It appears I don’t really understand in detail what the Church’s teaching on infallibility is. I retract my first two articles, and will now have to rewrite the third along a different line of reasoning.

Part of the problem is I’ve been in the process of leaving my Catholic parish for an Anglican parish, and my thoughts about things have shifted considerably over the past few months.

I’m not really interested in what Rome considers or does not consider infallible anymore. I don’t accept any of it as infallible. In this sense, I’m quite Protestant.

I’ll rethink my third article, but in light of this, I’m not sure if the thread should survive in its current form. I will of course reply to your well-thought-out recent post, and we can discuss that. I just need to think about my response carefully.

 

[SonCatcher]

Paul,

The third article seems to revolve around the licitness of delaying pregnancy in the case of need. Concerns about the wife’s physical well-being and financial destitution of the family are certainly legitimate reasons to choose to defer pregnancy, even indefinitely. However, we may not do something that is immoral, even for good reason (ref: Romans 3:8).

Fortunately, human knowledge about the reproductive system increased along with the technologies that improved artificial contraception. It is now possible for a couple to quickly know whether intercourse is likely to result in the conception of a child. If so, the couple may defer intercourse until it is unlikely to result in conception (after the released egg had died). Techniques to do this are not complex and can typically be taught even to uneducated people very quickly.

The only situations which remain are highly atypical (e.g. using the Pill as hormonal therapy for treatment of severe endometriosis) and are best handled between the couple and a faithful priest.

 

[SonCatcher]

If it helps any, there are teachings of the Church that I do not understand well. I choose give the benefit of doubt to 2000 years of experience, teaching and pastoral care.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I’m sorry to do this, but this is a minor issue compared to the others I am dealing with at this time.

Currently, I’m returning to Natural Law theory to see if I even accept it anymore. If I don’t accept that, then the whole issue is up in the air in a whole different way.

This issue, right when I left Rome, seemed very serious to me. Now, it seems as though I don’t really need a good reason for artificial contraception, since there are no good reasons against its use.

This is an issue about which, frankly, I am unwilling to reconsider at this time (I thought I was, and said so here, but I was fooling myself). I’ll return to it in a year or so, after I’m settled in the Anglican Church.

I will keep your argument, Suncatcher, and think on it. Thank you for your time and energy in this.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I’m sorry to do this, but this is a minor issue compared to the others I am dealing with at this time.

Currently, I’m returning to Natural Law theory to see if I even accept it anymore. If I don’t accept that, then the whole issue is up in the air in a whole different way.

This issue, right when I left Rome, seemed very serious to me. Now, it seems as though I don’t really need a good reason for artificial contraception, since there are no good reasons against its use.

This is an issue about which, frankly, I am unwilling to reconsider at this time (I thought I was, and said so here, but I was fooling myself). I’ll return to it in a year or so, after I’m settled in the Anglican Church.

I will keep your argument, Suncatcher, and think on it. Thank you for your time and energy in this.

I find it interesting that you can quickly toss out the teachings on contraception and yet find no fault with the Church’s stance on abortion? As a Protestant I was raised trying to walk the knife edge of understanding that contraception is ok, all forms, and that abortion was wrong. It was impossible as a young person to comprehend what unitive meant and as a result once I accepted contraception then abortion was much easier to justify in the cases of rape and incest, and then that slippery slope just would not stop.

When I was a child, late 60’s, I actually recall the discussion on Roe-V-Wade. I remember my mother talking about how in the old days contraception was wrong, but that it was ok now. That being said if you are going to abandon the Catholic Church why go to Church at all? What is your real motivation? If you are just confused about logic or want to feel good, then maybe Zen or some other inner soul searching would be fine for you.

Please don’t misunderstand I do not want you to do this as it took me 47 years to finally get to Rome. 35 as a Lutheran, 10 married to a Catholic and one day I read a couple of documents that made me really consider what is happening to our society. One was Humanae Vitea and frankly that was the document that made me come to the Church.

It is absolutely correct what Pope Paul predicted and I am old enough to remember when condoms and the pill were not so easy to get. Taking them was bad and divorce was uncommon.

I really hope you reconsider your decision. Why change? If you cannot accept the teachings of the Church why accept that the Church was correct in selecting the books of the bible. You can read the Gospel of Judas, Mary and Jesus in the Gnostic Bible.

You can then pick and choose any idea or belief that tickles your fancy and you will only have to worry that you might have made a mistake in your reasoning?

I wish I was a confirmed Catholic I am still trying to get a Bishop to confirm me so I can participate in the Eucharist. Moving all over the world on short notice, to really remote areas makes it hard. In a way I am jealous.

I guess I wonder about your thoughts on apostolic succession? Do you believe that Women can be Bishops? How will you know if the Anglican priest you have is properly ordained? If you don’t believe in Apostolic succession then why not be Lutheran, or Methodist or a Baptist? Shoot you could pick and choose any denomination since you can determine what is and what is not valid teaching. In fact you could pray and write your own Bible right using the logic that God would have inspired you, since each person can question and validate what they feel in their hearts to be true?

I know you are struggling and I will pray for you. I too struggled when I realized that Protestants (Like Me) just like to protest, and that they are disintegrating over their not wanting to listen to authority, even in their own churches. Every Tom Dick and Pastor can make their own translations.

Well I hope you will reconsider your thoughts about going into protest.

Take care,

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I find it interesting that you can quickly toss out the teachings on contraception and yet find no fault with the Church’s stance on abortion?

Because abortion is murder. This is akin to a teetotaler saying to me: “You quickly toss out Bible teaching that drinking is wrong, so how can you be against slavery?” It doesn’t connect.

But it’s not this issue. There’s a particular Roman dogma about which I am confident is wrong. I hold to this so absolutely, I won’t debate it here, but it deals with hell.

I guess I wonder about your thoughts on apostolic succession? Do you believe that Women can be Bishops?

No, I don’t think they can.

How will you know if the Anglican priest you have is properly ordained?

Anglican orders are valid because they have apostolic succession, and their ordination is valid. I believe this like I believe that God exists. As my signature says.

In fact you could pray and write your own Bible right using the logic that God would have inspired you, since each person can question and validate what they feel in their hearts to be true?

It is true. I lack certainty. I think so do you. I found as much certainty as a Roman Catholic that I do now. Not much.

I know you are struggling and I will pray for you. I too struggled when I realized that Protestants (Like Me) just like to protest, and that they are disintegrating over their not wanting to listen to authority, even in their own churches. Every Tom Dick and Pastor can make their own translations.

Well I hope you will reconsider your thoughts about going into protest.

Take care,

Thank you, and take care also. My prayers are with you, too.

 

[Betterave]

This issue, right when I left Rome, seemed very serious to me. Now, it seems as though I don’t really need a good reason for artificial contraception, since there are no good reasons against its use.

This is an issue about which, frankly, I am unwilling to reconsider at this time (I thought I was, and said so here, but I was fooling myself).

With due respect, I hope you don’t mind my suggesting that you may be fooling yourself still in the following way: First, you state there are no good reasons against using AC. Then you acknowledge that you are unwilling to reconsider the issue; in other words, you are unwilling to consider whether the reasons against using AC may in fact be good. This is called begging the question. (I don’t mean to sound condescending pointing this out, but the fact is that not all people on these forums are familiar with fallacious argument forms - I’m beginning to wonder if I may have assumed more knowledge of the basic categories of so-called ‘critical thinking’/informal logic on your part than I should have earlier - sorry if this was the case and this is what left you nonplussed at times).

Good luck with sorting through your beliefs. Peace.

 

[Betterave]

But it’s not this issue. There’s a particular Roman dogma about which I am confident is wrong. I hold to this so absolutely, I won’t debate it here, but it deals with hell.

Yes, HELL! That has been my suspicion for a while now: that the real issue here, which I didn’t realize before, is hell. This is my thought: When you don’t believe in hell, it doesn’t matter what you believe or whether you obey legitimate authority or not. You can only ever have “purely intellectual” debates about these things, as Paul wanted to do. Without hell nothing is ever ultimately at stake in one’s spiritual life, so no debate can ever be anything but “purely intellectual” (i.e., it doesn’t really matter - even abortion, and even if abortion is murder).

(And it seems the same result can be achieved, while retaining the doctrine of hell, by maintaining the protestant doctrine of the total depravity of the human intellect.)

Of course the catch is: not believing in hell might just contribute to getting oneself into hell (an at least potentially sobering thought).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think you understand what the logical fallacies are very well at all. I admit I could be wrong.

As for this topic, I don’t want to return to it for some time. Probably a year or so. Things need to settle.

With due respect, I hope you don’t mind my suggesting that you may be fooling yourself still in the following way: First, you state there are no good reasons against using AC. Then you acknowledge that you are unwilling to reconsider the issue; in other words, you are unwilling to consider whether the reasons against using AC may in fact be good. This is called begging the question. (I don’t mean to sound condescending pointing this out, but the fact is that not all people on these forums are familiar with fallacious argument forms - I’m beginning to wonder if I may have assumed more knowledge of the basic categories of so-called ‘critical thinking’/informal logic on your part than I should have earlier - sorry if this was the case and this is what left you nonplussed at times).

Good luck with sorting through your beliefs. Peace.

 

[Betterave]

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think you understand what the logical fallacies are very well at all. I admit I could be wrong.

As for this topic, I don’t want to return to it for some time. Probably a year or so. Things need to settle.

I don’t want to insist that you return to seriously consider the topic of contraception, since you don’t want to at this time, but if you want to claim, in ‘perfect honesty,’ that you think I don’t understand logical fallacies very well, could you please show me the courtesy of explaining how you think I have erred? How is it that your claim is not begging the question?

 

[SonCatcher]

Paul,

Thank you for your honesty in this. I will pray for your continued discernment.

 

[SonCatcher]

I would prefer to say that IC was simply true prior to its being infallibly declared a dogma. (As I understand, ‘infallibility’ refers to the acts of a person, not to the status of a doctrine.) The declaration simply established a particular ‘juridical’ standing for the dogma (it seems to me) - i.e.: this truth of the faith is now solemnly established, although with the recognition that it has been, historically, a subject of legitimate theological debate amongst orthodox theologians (unlike the cases of contraception or abortion, for which no equivalent formal declaration is required in order for the relevant Church teaching to be recognized as infallible).

Betterave,

Thank you for tempering my earlier statement. I realized last night that it was perhaps worded so strongly that it could cause misunderstanding.

Before the infallible declaration, it was possible for a Catholic to hold a heterodox position without the sin of heresy. I meant that the Holy Spirit maintained the correct teaching in the Church before it was publicly known to be infallible.