Down to the Nitty-Gritty questions.
Let's get right down to it, you know, the REAL
nitty-gritty!
The Editor and James have refocused our discussions, time and again, to what
they consider central issues and core issues.
The issue is not primarily one of authority insofar as natural law
interpretations are accessible to human reason. Authority only becomes an issue
because the ordinary magisterium has failed to make a satisfactory appeal to
human reason, has failed to discern the sense of the faithful and has therefore
had to rely on heavy-handed and apodictic pronouncements. So, that issue won't
go away. But let's set it aside for this consideration.
It appears to me that all of our debates and deliberations will have us talking
past one another ad nauseum because of a profound disagreement at the level of
fundamental presuppositions regarding the proper interpretation of the natural
law.
As long as some choose an exclusively essentialistic approach and disregard any
existentialistic approach, we will ALWAYS disagree.
It is almost as simple as asking: Do you include an existentialistic approach
in your interpretation of natural law? And, if the answer is no, then the
debate is really over inasmuch as all of the responses and counterarguments
will algorithmically flow from those presuppositions.
A similar and much related phenomenon occurs in the realm of metaethics where
deontological and teleological approaches are concerned. If the authoritative
and deontological approach is taken to the exclusion of nonauthoritative and
teleological approaches, as a metaethical superstructure, then any ensuing
ethical decisions, deliberations and debates are going to unfold
algorithmically and reasoning appeals founded on an alternative metaethic are
guaranteed to be fruitless.
So, what I am suggesting is, we should just agree to disagree and shut down
this bulletin board. JUST KIDDING! What I am suggesting is that we consider why
the Church should or should not supplement its essentialistic approaches with
existentialistic approaches. Can we look to Thomas Aquinas, for instance, to
defend the use of teleological approaches in addition to deontological
approaches? Also, does consequentialistic ethics have a role in our moral
deliberations?
Our approach presently is one-sidedly philosophical. How can we make it more
Christocentric, more "anchored in charity"? It is a narrow, parochial
approach. Could it be more universal [catholic] in its appeal? It is
biologistic and physicalistic. How can we make it more personalistic,
emphasizing the centrality of the human person? It is presented as infallible.
How could it be more "modest and tentative" in its appeal? Could it
be more ecumenical, drawing on other sources outside Catholicism for ideas? It
is so exclusively deductive. How could it be more inductive, using the insight
of laypersons? It seeks universal conformism. How can it be more pluralistic,
allowing for differences according to individual cases? It has been so
manualistic and minimalistic. How can it be more aspirational, "appealing
to the spiritual hungers of people" vs. setting forth merely basic
obligations?
These are mostly paraphrases from folks like Fathers McBrien and McCormick.
My challenge to the conservatives is to answer why things must be so
one-sidedly philosophical, essentialistic, minmalistic, physicalistic,
biologistic, parochial, deductive, infallibilistic?
The case to made by the progressives is how we can better aspire and give
witness to the complementary values that I juxtaposed above.
Most respectfully, thanking all for their contributions to this discussion
which impacts Church life pervasively on so many fronts, I remain in
Shalom,
Mo4
Absolutely
superb post, Mom! You put your finger on the "nitty gritty" issues,
for sure.
I've recommended two positive "ways out" of the current impasse on
the web site, but maybe it's been awhile since I put them up on the board.
1. Broaden the understanding of what "Natural Law" affirms for human
sexuality. This will call for a small dip into existential considerations, but
only very small. Too often, Natural Law understanding looks at the
"objective structure" of an act, and/or looks at the purpose of an
act relative to its purpose in the animal kingdom. Hence:
a. sex for animals is primarily (almost totally) about reproduction;
b. human beings also use sex to reproduce;
c. the first end of human sexuality is reproduction;
d. there may be secondary "goods" in human sexual relations, but
these are always secondary, suspect, and likely tainted by selfishness/Original
Sin.
Do you see the flawed reasoning in the leap from b to c? What about the ongoing
interest by a couple in sexual relations as indicating that an evolution of
this function has taken place so that it's not merely reproductive in focus,
but unitive as well? What about this unitive aspect being a *Natural* and even
distinctive aspect of human sexuality--even the primary aspect?
What the Church could do, here, even at this "late date" of having
reaffirmed Humane Vitae again and again, is acknowledge the role of human
behavioral sciences and even biology (specifically, ethology) in helping to
come to a broader understanding of human sexuality. They could acknowledge
that our grasp of Natural Law is an ongoing process, calling for reformulations
of moral teaching from time to time in light of this fuller grasp. They could
affirm the good work done in the past in fidelity to the understandings
perceived during those times, then go on to allow all non-abortive forms of
birth control for married couples who have decided they need to space their
children or avoid having one altogether. They could explain that openness to
procreate is an essential way to honor the full meaning of human sexuality, and
so couples should keep this in mind, evaluating between themselves and before
God when they feel called to bring a child into this world (same as with NFP,
btw).
They could do all this in such a way as to not admit they're "eating
crow," and be more respected for it in the long run.
b. Natural Law isn't our only source for determining moral behavior. Biblical
revelation has a lot to say about this as well, of course. As the Bible hasn't
much to say, really, about contraception, one could point to its teaching about
marriage as a covenant between husband and wife. The characteristics of this
covenant could be spelled out, especially in the light of the meaning of
covenant between God and Israel, and Christ in the Church. Values like love,
tenderness, fidelity, trust, and commitment could be emphasized as
constituative of the covenant; their importance in marriage and sexuality could
be emphasized as well, for sex outside of this context is generally demeaning
of both partners. It could also be shown that there are important rituals in
which the covenant is remembered (anamnesis) and celebrated, facilitating a
deeper surrender of God's covenant partner to the covenanting God, and
producing a deeper realization of the promises of the covenant. Sex in marriage
could be regarded as such a celebrative ritual in which the couple surrenders
themselves more fully to one another and to God, deepening their love for one
another, and thus evidencing more fully what it means to be an ecclesia
domestica or domestic Church. There will be little need to emphasize the
procreative aspect since bringing more individuals into this circle of love is
a natural development in covenantal spirituality. Covenantal love overflows
into evangelical endeavors and, in the context of marriage, in bringing new
life into this world.
The Church could easily acknowledge that the broadened idea of Natural Law
sketched above along with this deeper appreciation of marriage as a covenantal
relationship calls for a new appreciation of the role of human sexuality in
marriage. Human sexuality in the service of covenant and in accordance with the
broader understanding of Natural Law would refocus ethical considerations away
from preserving the objective, structural integrity of the sex act and
emphasize instead its relational implications. The morality of marital
sexuality would be evaluated more in terms of the love and growth it fosters
among couples (or not) than whether or not impediments to procreation were
present or absent.
That's my dream, and my hope for the Church. It's
what makes sense to me, and is the approach my spouse and I have been taking
for the past 10 years. I commend it to consideration for those who are forming
their consciences on this issue.
Editor,
With this approach, you have just totally shot down any argument against
homosexual unions.
Sexual relations aren't primarily about reproduction? It's primarily unitive?
Then why does sex have to be between a man and a woman?
Further intentions always trump the objective evil of an act? Then a homosexual
couple who have the best intentions of staying together, maybe even going so
far as moving to Vermont and having a commitment ceremony, are justified.
The one irrefutable argument against homosexual unions is the intrinsic evil of
the act.
What you are talking about is moral relativism, plain and simple - no other
fancy names are needed. If you scrap absolute standards for anything, not just
sexual matters, then there can be no justice. Your wrong is someone else's
right, and vice versa. How could we bring someone to court, or send someone to
jail, unless there are agreed upon absolutes in place about what is right and
wrong?
It doesn't ultimately work.
Regards,
JSM
So, JSM, the *ONLY* argument against homosexual unions is
that human sexuality is primarily procreative? Is that what you're saying?
If so, it's a pretty lame argument inasmuch as married couples have sex for
unitive purposes about a thousand times more often for procreative. I've
explained this to you before. Does that say ANYTHING about whether the
procreative is more important than the unitive?
Homosexual couples can NEVER have procreative sex, so they can never realize
the full meaning of human sexuality. Heterosexual couples--even those using
birth control--can do so, however. That's a big difference!
But, as I say, if that's the only argument against homosexuality, it's not much
of one. And, at any rate, I've little interest in pursuing that topic in the
context of this thread. Start a new one if you want to go more deeply into it.
Re. moral relativism: sorry, I don't buy it. The standard for evaluating the
morality of sexual behavior needs to be much, much more than if it's
theoretically open to conception. NFP users have sex that is just as
objectively closed to this possibility as ABC users, so what's your point? Or
are you going to try to tell us again that they really ARE open to new life and
that their relations aren't primarily unitive in nature? That don't work.
James
wrote: What you have essentially said here is that there is no objective
difference from a homosexual couple who have anal sex, and a heterosexual
couple who, knowing full-well that they are sterile, have intercourse. If you
honestly cannot see the absurdity in this statement, then perhaps a discussion
with you is pointless. I will then just leave you with this thought: Why does
the Church allow sterile people to marry one another, without limits on the
conjugal act. Obviously a sterile couple has sex with one intent and one intent
only, unitive intercourse. Which is not the same thing as allowing homosexual
unions.
Editor: JSM, another thing is that this dual notion of human sexuality as procreative AND unitive needs to be better nuanced. The unitive aspect probably evolved to help keep the parents together as this was advantageous in brining up the young. Hence, the unitive has an orientation toward the procreative in addition to being a good for the couple's relationship per se. Obviously, this procreative reference of unitive sex cannot be realized in a homosexual relationship.
JSM,
when you open your response with this --->With this approach, you have just
totally shot down any argument against homosexual unions. Sexual relations
aren't primarily about reproduction? It's primarily unitive? Then why does sex
have to be between a man and a woman? <---
you give me the impression that your primary argument against the
existentialistic, personalistic, aspirational, inductive, teleolgical,
nonauthoritative etc etc etc slate of approaches to natural law interpretations
is your concern that homosexual unions would no longer be illicit.
Without addressing whether your concern is well founded or not, I must point
out that you are thereby engaging that logical fallacy called the *slippery
slope fallacy*. It has no force of reason. That is to say, you must refocus
your argument, if you care to be persuasive, on the issue at hand, which is why
exclude the existentialistic slate of approaches from one's ethical
deliberations.
As the Editor suggested, you may wish to pursue why you believe the following
statement to be true in another thread, which was: ---> The one irrefutable
argument against homosexual unions is the intrinsic evil of the act.<---
Now, when you say this, you are precisely back on topic:
---> What you are talking about is moral relativism, plain and simple - no
other fancy names are needed. If you scrap absolute standards for anything, not
just sexual matters, then there can be no justice. Your wrong is someone else's
right, and vice versa. <----
What you are saying, therefore, is that there can be no such thing as a
nonauthoritative approach to ethics, no teleological approach, only the
authoritative & deontological approaches. That is your position statement,
but we all already knew that.
It is only when we get here, where you wrote: --->How could we bring someone
to court, or send someone to jail, unless there are agreed upon absolutes in
place about what is right and wrong? <---- that you have begun to offer a
reason for your position. Ironically, in order to make a compelling argument in
favor of authoritative approaches you had to fall back on what appears to be an
essentially pragmatic approach, which is consequentialistic and teleological,
or, iow, nonauthoritative.
I don't mean to come across so pedantic, especially not condescending to you,
in particular, JSM, but rather am trying to parse these considerations for all
others who may read these exchanges. Further, I am going to try to acquire some
other resources on the authoritative and nonauthoritative approaches and seek
the Editor's help in making these available so others don't get lost in the
flurry of big words.
Though I continue to disagree with your presuppositions, I very much apprciate
that your own presentations are logically consistent and internally coherent.
Thanks for hanging with us.
Cordially,
Mo4
You
can read the essays here (well, the parts in red, anyway) if you need a better
feel for the distinctions made between authoritative and nonauthoritative
approaches. You don't need to agree with the essay content. They are there to help
you contextualize the terms used in our forum discussions.
https://revising.tripod.com/nonauthoritative.htm
regards,
Mo4