Natural Law Philosophy Debunked? Earmuffs

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would this be a mortal sin or venial sin similar to how masturbation and contraception are mortal sins?
Interesting question. Suffice it to say that if St. Paul had ever seen or heard of an entertainment event where the blasphemy and impurity were so loud that it was enough to permanently harm your hearing, he would have condemned it as entirely unfitting for Christians.

St. Paul wrote:
Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.
1 Cor. 6:15-20

Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Eph. 6:3-5

Yes, it is also probably a mortal sin to seek entertainment with a full appreciation that it will permanently damage your hearing. St. Paul was also not one to split hairs and write off some kinds of sin as beneath concern, as some have a way of doing when they find that something is “only a venial” sin.

Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says:
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will give you light.”

Eph. 5:6-14

No, St. Paul wrote like this: that is, like a professional athlete who never took winning for granted, someone who neglected no opportunity to be better:
Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.
1 Cor. 9:24-27
I am wondering why this question would even arise. I cannot see any relationship whatsoever.
???
I’m told I am very picky about my analogies, but I’d say the OP’s example is not a good example to illustrate what is meant by a contradiction of the ultimate purpose of a faculty of the body. It was a fair try at attempting to understand the concept, but (IMO) it misses the point.
 
Last edited:
No, that’s just what hearing is. What is it ordered towards?

I understand that’s a hard one to describe, but that’s the reason why your analogy isn’t coming together.

A better analogy would be to eating. Eating is ordered towards the nutrition of the body. Therefore if you interfere with that, say by eating a delicious meal and then throwing up so you don’t take in the nutrition, that would be a sin.
 
Without wishing to cast the slightest doubt upon the Church’s teaching — I think anyone who has ever read any of my posts knows where I stand on the issue — I have never been convinced that an appeal to natural law is the best and strongest way to defend Catholic teaching on contraception. I have wondered if Paul VI “messed up” when he hung so much of Humanae vitae upon an appeal to natural law — not to say that he was wrong, absolutely not, but was it the best argument?

And I am going to “throw this out there”, but I have also wondered if, without having any intention whatsoever of preventing conception, the Church might one day say that it is licit and acceptable to use a barrier method (such as a condom, I don’t know what other type of “barrier method” would accomplish this) solely to prevent the transmission of disease. I have in mind, most of all, HIV, but other diseases could fall into this category as well. The reasoning would be “we do not want to contracept, but using a barrier is the only way to prevent contact, or transfer of fluids, that could transmit the disease in question, and the fact that this barrier prevents conception is just an unintended and unwanted side effect”. I have to wonder if this could be a future “development of doctrine”, not a change in that doctrine, but a further application and elaboration of it.

I want to be as clear as I can possibly be, to avoid causing problems on this forum, that I am absolutely not questioning the Church’s teaching on birth regulation. That is something you will never hear from me.
 
To HomeschoolDad:
With all due respect, the Church advises abstinence unless we are open to life.
To me, this question is a bit like asking if the Church would ever advise cannibals to fully cook the flesh of their victims before consuming them so as to avoid disease.
 
Last edited:
To HomeschoolDad:
With all due respect, the Church advises abstinence unless we are open to life.
To me, this question is a bit like asking if the Church would ever advise cannibals to fully cook the flesh of their victims before consuming them so as to avoid disease.
Again, to be as emphatic as I can possibly be, I am totally on point with the Church’s teaching. Some would blast me on this, but I think that contraception is the “besetting sin” of a massive number of married couples in our modern world, and — here comes the blast! — it has the potential of being the sin that, given sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, could separate many, many people from the grace of Almighty God. It is objectively grave matter and a sin of the flesh, and it is not a sin that of its nature can be committed in a fit of passion, confusion, or intemperance. Not to be crude, but it takes full willful consent and deliberation to go to the doctor for a prescription, or to drive down to the drugstore — it’s not the sort of thing you do in a confused, blithering fog of impaired will and consent.

I merely speculated along these lines:
  • You wish to prevent the transmission of disease
  • You do not wish to prevent conception
  • However, placing a barrier is the only way to prevent disease
  • In so doing, though, you also render conception impossible
  • You are not preventing disease by preventing conception, you are preventing disease by not allowing tissues or fluids to come in contact with the body of your partner
  • Would it be possible to defend use of the barrier, even though it has an unwanted secondary effect of preventing conception?
As in all matters, I would ultimately defer to the mind of the teaching magisterium of the Church.
 
40.png
JJO:
Hi guys,

The Catechism says this
“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the ultimate purpose of the sexual faculty” which is why masturbation, contraception etc are wrong.

But what if I deliberately use my hearing faculties (my ears) for reasons outside normal hearing purposes such as wearing fluffy earmuffs as a fashionable thing to wear. This contradicts and frustrates the ultimate purpose of my ears so is blocking your ears also sinful?

Please help me to resolve this systematically and logically.

By the way, I completely agree with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, but I fear She hasn’t made her arguments very strong.

JJO
Putting earmuffs on is like wearing underwear.
Don’t get those mixed up, goout.
 
😂 If I do mix them up you will get a nice story out of it. No pics though. (to your relief I’m sure)
 
Don’t worry, I know earmuffs aren’t bad. Someone was trying to say that contraception wasn’t bad just like earmuffs aren’t bad. That’s why the question arose
 
St. Paul was also not one to split hairs and write off some kinds of sin as beneath concern, as some have a way of doing when they find that something is “only a venial” sin.
That’s very true
 
Point taken. I would have to say hearing is ordered towards understanding??
 
I don’t think I’d change tha teaching.

Is there any better justification than the natural law do you think?
 
I don’t think I’d change tha teaching.

Is there any better justification than the natural law do you think?
It wouldn’t be a change, it would be an evolution, a development of doctrine, and would vitiate nothing whatsoever about the core teaching. But I would defer to the magisterium, either way. I’m just throwing it out there. The last thing in the world I am, is a dissident from the Church’s teaching on contraception.

The natural law is not a particularly bad justification, and it is certainly part of the whole picture, but I have just wondered if Paul VI relied too heavily upon it, when perhaps he should have pointed out the gravely sinful nature of using sex outside of God’s plan for it. I am concerned that people have come away thinking that even if it is “wrong” on some ontic, pre-moral level, it’s more in the nature of a venial sin, or an easily forgivable one, rather than something that could cause the loss of one’s soul for all eternity. Our Lady warned that the sins that send more people to hell than any other type of sins, are the sins of the flesh. And contraception seems to be the carnal sin that the most people commit on a regular, long-term, unrepentant basis.
 
So is eating things for the sake of pleasure and eating things which don’t nourish your body . So would having sex when it is impossible to conceive and you know it. Lots of examples
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top