JSM wrote: Could
it be that selfishness is indeed INHERENT in certain acts, apart from
intentions?
No, it could
not be.
Sin involves 1) an objective evil 2) of varying degrees of seriousness with 3)
a person's knowledge of the evil and it's gravity and also 4) their full
consent, that is they must fully and freely intend to do the evil act.
Church teaching is very clear in its separation of the objective conditions for
sin from their subjective fulfillment. Further, Catholics are forbidden to
judge the interior dispositions of other people.
Now, if in the totality of a marriage, without serious reasons based on grave
physical, psychological or external conditions, a couple deliberately thwarts
the procreative/generative aspect of their union, by whatever contraceptive
method they choose, ABC or NFP, then we are looking at the possibility of a
serious sin, according to Humane Vitae, Pius XII and others.
Let's study this further.
Let's define:
1) the objective evil
2) the varying degrees of seriousness
3) a person's knowledge of the evil and it's gravity and 4) their full consent,
that is that they must have fully and freely intended to do the evil act.
The Church
appears to be dealing with the issue on two levels? It appears that the Church
is saying that both the ABC and NFP approach can be sinful if they thwart the
procreative aspect over the totality of the relationship? Is it also saying
that the ABC approach commits an additional sin by accomplishing the same end
"unnaturally" (I bring this up since our discussion board has devoted
a good bit of bandwidth to that aspect also)?
Respectfully,
Mo4
So, Editor: What's your take on these questions?
The Church appears to be dealing with the issue on two levels? It appears that
the Church is saying that both the ABC and NFP approach can be sinful if they
thwart the procreative aspect over the totality of the relationship? Is it also
saying that the ABC approach commits an additional sin by accomplishing the
same end "unnaturally" (I bring this up since our discussion board
has devoted a good bit of bandwidth to that aspect also)?
More clearly, is the Church condemnation based solely on the separation of the
procreative/generative from the unitive? Or have the natural law arguments been
more nuanced on several fronts so as to make these distinctions everyone has
been drawing between what is natural and *unnatural*? It does appear that
JPII's apologetic has moved strongly toward his personalist philosophical
approach coupled with some existential Thomism?
The reason I raise the issue is that it has a bearing on that argument that
suggests that it is the preservation of the procreative/generative dimension in
the totality of the relationship that matters and not isolated acts. Because
the Church teaches that serious reasons must exist for NFP it seems to be
teleologically relating ABC and NFP but still making ontological distinctions,
while, at the same time, being concerned with both. Could we really just
declare the primary reason for the conjugal act to be unitive and then dismiss
with the NFP vs ABC issue?
Mom, when are you going to ask an easy question?
Actually,
you have several tough ones here.
First, the reason I have stated that the primary purpose of married sex is
unitive is because couples have sex for this reason many, many more times than
they do with the intention of procreating. This also suggests and
"end" of marriage that has less to do with the traditional
justification of bringing children into the world and educating them and more
to do with marriage itself being a good--a spiritual pathway, even--a means by
which husband and wife find God, journey together, and help one another get to
heaven. I don't think that's been properly emphasized in Christianity, but,
then, who were the ones writing the tomes about the purpose of the Sacrament of
Matrimony.
Obviously, there's also a procreative dimension to sex and, by extension, to
marriage.
The essentialistic approach has emphasized non-separation of these two aspects
in each and every sex act, and there is a strong logic there, of course--the
implication being that deliberate separation compromises the full integrity and
potentiality of marital sex. This logic breaks down, however, when NFP is
allowed, for it is clear that with NFP there IS not only an intent for
non-procreative sex, but actual success in achieving that through the right
practice. Hence, for contracepting NFP users, the procreative and unitive
apsects of human sexuality ARE separated in the sex acts that the couple actually
has.
And so the Church, in allowing NFP, has indeed strained so hard against its
essentialistic logic as to make it clear than another kind of ethical influence
is at work in its teaching--namely, an existentialist tradition informed
largely by the experiences of married couples.
The present teaching is something of a compromise position, not fully
satisfying the longings of either ethical stream. JPII's attempt to try to
refocus things using his personalist approach doesn't really help much, as the
whole "language of love" paradigm is based on all sorts of silly and
judgmental notions about ABC users. I've shot that down many times; there's a
good exchange in the archives about it, and a web page on the web site.
In teaching that serious reasons must exist for NFP, the Church is, again,
drawing from an existentialistic position. A purely essentialistic approach
would say that if those reasons actually exist, then all sex should be
refrained from until those serious reasons have been transcended--or else take
your chances. That's not what's taught, of course. We note, too, that the
Magisterium also leaves it to the couple and their conscience to decide what
those reasons are, and when they no longer exist. Presumably, they could exist
through the entirety of the marriage, meaning that the Church is acknowledging
that there could well be reasons why a couple would choose to ALWAYS have sex
that is unitive-only in intent and likely outcome because of circumstances that
the couple themselves have deemed serious enough to exclude the procreative
possibility.
The only real controversial issue on the floor, really, is the acceptable
method for avoiding procreation. As noted above, in allowing NFP, the
essentialistic approach is negated. That's been demonstrated so many times on
this web site and discussion board that I'm still surprised when it comes up.
So if the Magisterium is willing to acknowledge that a couple has enough sense
to know when they need to avoid procreation (and that, it seems to me, IS the big
decision they must make), then why not allow them to choose the means to insure
that their resolution is, in fact, carried out--so long as no violence is done
to any new life which might be formed through their union?
I don't know if this answers all your questions, so please post any follow-ups
you need to. And thanks for your good sharing and amicable interactions with
the visitors to the Board.
Dear
Editor: BINGO!
What the ordinary magisterium has done, apparently unwittingly, is to let the
unitive camel's head into the human sexuality tent.
When it comes to an acceptable method for avoiding procreation, there is a
circularity of argument at play. The only reason that *methods* emerged as an
issue in the first place is because a procreative standard was being applied to
isolated acts. What I was hoping you'd demonstrate, and you did, is that by
taking the approach James advocated, which was elevating the unitive, not only
does the birth control controversy go away but, as a natural follow, so do
issues of nonabortive methodology.
Thanks for your engaging post.
Shalom, all.
Momma
Well,
thanks, Mom for taking care of that one!
Pert' soon in JSM's world we'd be back to listing acts that are sins no matter
what, and those that aren't no matter what, then we can abandon the messy
business of interiority and discernment and just focus on "doing the right
things to go to heaven."
Wouldn't that be wonderful?
: You do realize that by "taking care of that
one", Mom has also effectively nullified what you wrote re masturbation:
--->In the case of homosexual sex, it's obvious that this cannot ever meet
the criteria for openness to life, not in any act, nor in the relationship as a
whole. Same goes for masturbation, which doesn't even satisfy any unitive
aspect, but is entirely self-focused <--
If you truly meant that, like homosexual acts, masturbation can never meet the
criteria for openness to life, then you are in effect saying it is ALWAYS
wrong.
Even
if it were always "intrinsically disordered" or an ontic evil, it would
not be sinful where the principle of double effect is properly applied, such as
in the testicular cancer example, for instance. It depends on what one means by
ALWAYS WRONG and, once again, the Editor was obviously dealing with sin vis a
vis intentionality as revealed within the context of his/her other posts and
not just some premoral or ontic evil definition.
JSM
wrote: Could it be that selfishness is indeed INHERENT in certain acts, apart
from intentions? Could that then mean that certain acts are INHERENTLY evil,
because of what they do to the sexual act, regardless of outcome or intent? You
see, that is the unsaid part of the Editor's argument against masturbation. It
doesn't satisfy any unitive aspect - in what sense? It's not necessarily
intent, so it must necessarily be HOW THE ACT IS PERFORMED.
Wrong again.
Take the man
who self-stimulates to orgasm in a fertility clinic in order to get a sperm
count or diagnose other medical problems.
Mo4, wrong
again. Masturbation for any reason is disordered. Sorry, but there are
perforated condoms to accomplish this licitly.
Elaboration - from, Bernard Haring, leading Moral
Theologian in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century by Professor Daniel C.
Maguire, Theology Department, Marquette University
Catholic theologians in the recent past went to absurd levels in condemning
masturbation. When fertility testing required sperm, they rushed for
embarrassing alternatives to masturbation. They suggested intercourse with
one's spouse in a private medical setting using a perforated condom. Their hope
was that this would be normal intercourse since there would be some
insemination (the contraceptive taboo). Of course, condoms are not treated to
be kind to sperm and this was medically unacceptable. Next they repaired to
what I have called "the ouch option," use of a needle syringe to go
into the scrotum to retrieve the sperm. This, of course, would produce the
sperm as it is in storage, not as it is on delivery and it also was unhelpful.
I was present at a meeting of The Catholic Theological Society of America in
the early 1960's when Fr. Bernard Haring was asked what was his preferred
method for acquiring the sperm for fertility testing. The questioner was asking
about the two above listed "options." Fr. Haring replied:
"Massaging the penis is effective," and moved on to the next
question. There was shocked silence! One does not often get to attend the death
of a taboo.
Mom,
You're right - just rubbing one's penis is not inherently selfish. But then,
just rubbing one's penis does not make that an act of masturbation. One must
also have the object of sexual gratification in order to call it masturbation.
That is the definition in the Catechism:
2352: By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the
genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.
The problem here is that it seems people are saying "Masturbation is not
always wrong because it depends on what intent you have while
masturbating." What should be said is "The act is NOT masturbation
because sexual pleasure is not the aim [when it comes to collecting sperm for
medical reasons]."
I was therefore correct in saying that selfishness is inherent in an act of
masturbation - with the understanding that expressly pursuing sexual
gratification is integral to that act.
Once it is established that an act meets the definition of masturbation, then
there is NO justification for it.
Regards,
JSM
So, then, JSM, you acknowledge that it's not the act per
se that makes something a sin, but that circumstances and intent qualify the
act.
Seems in another post you were denying this kind of qualification.
It seems that, with some help from the Catechism, you
have finally grasped the role that intent plays in making an action sinful or
not. Now, we can move on.
Mom,
Excuse me? What do you mean, move on?
If you mean that you concede the fact that masturbation is always wrong, and
inherently so, no matter with what intentions it is done, then ok, let's move
on.
Is that in fact what you mean, because that is what I meant.
Regards,
JSM
Sorry,
JSM. Maybe I misunderstood this statement: It's not necessarily intent, so it
must necessarily be HOW THE ACT IS PERFORMED.
At times you seem to divorce a physical action from intent in ascribing evil to
it and then at times you seem to keep an act and its intent intertwined. To the
extent you keep them integrally intertwined, as you seem to do in defining
masturbation, I'd agree with your approach --- that is, the intertwining per
se.
If no one else sees this, then maybe it is my misread and I apologize for
projecting words or thoughts that you don't intend.
To be clear, I don't agree that masturbation is wrong and, even if I did, I
would not agree that it is gravely disordered. My disagreement stems from
adding existentialistic moral presuppositions to the merely essentialistic ones
in interpreting the natural law. So, basically, it is the same disagreement I
have with the condemnation of ABC.
By the way, you seem to have taken a position in between Bernard Haring, on one
hand, and what some conservatives represent as official church teaching, on the
other, with respect to whether or not the act massaging the penis is a licit
way to collect a semen sample. You might wish to float the distinction you are
making between masturbation and massaging the penis to ejaculation past an EWTN
or CIN message board. They will reject using the same flawed presuppositions
that are used to deny that NFP and ABC are moral equivalents
Hello
again Editor,
---"The only real controversial issue on the floor, really, is the
acceptable method for avoiding procreation. As noted above, in allowing NFP,
the essentialistic approach is negated. That's been demonstrated so many times
on this web site and discussion board that I'm still surprised when it comes
up. So if the Magisterium is willing to acknowledge that a couple has enough
sense to know when they need to avoid procreation (and that, it seems to me, IS
the big decision they must make), then why not allow them to choose the means
to insure that their resolution is, in fact, carried out--so long as no
violence is done to any new life which might be formed through their
union?"
The debate then is the means we choose to contracept...
This debate about means and "...why not allow them to choose the
means..." goes straight back to the natural law thing. I'm sorry, I can't
find a listing of "The Natural Law" anywhere. Can anybody help me out
here? Yes, a loaded question.
Applying my own interpretation about what is natural, let's look at the
acronyms ABC and NFP. Artificial = NOT Natural. Natural = Natural. O.k. O.k., I
know how the debate goes about NFP, periodic abstinence and determination of
fertility and how all that seems "unnatural" to some. In a twisted
sort of way I think some people feel that somehow ABC=NFP based upon their
interpretation of what is natural.
The
Church teaching on interpretation of the natural law is necessarily questioned
in this forum just as many other areas of Church teaching are called into
question here. If it weren’t questioned we wouldn’t have this debate. The
Magisterium is there for us to accept as an infallible guide in matters like
this. Let us not go into the infallibility debate. My point is that if at some
point we don’t accept the Church teaching, all the arguments fall apart, both
for and against ABC, NFP, or really any other moral issue.
from our last discussion…
“ ‘believe . . . trust . . . the Pope knows best . . . 2000 years of experience
. . .’ we've got nothing, really.
Please recall that one of the hallmarks of Catholic theology, especially on
moral teachings based on natural law, has always been its transparency to
reason. Appeals to faith, obedience, and a long tradition (one that's changed
its stance on a few significant issues, btw) is hardly convincing, but that's
what it always seems to comes down to. That's not an especially Catholic
attitude! In fact, it's a cop-out, especially when Catholics don't even have
their rights of conscience with regard to this teaching properly explained to
them.
We have a serious problem in the Church because of this teaching. Telling
people to have faith and obey is not the way to resolve it! “
With this attitude the debate will continue ad infinitum.
The Church is a human entity founded by Christ. Because it has a human element,
it is not perfect. Because of the authority vested in the Magisterium, it
should be trusted as divinely influenced. It is not bound by reason and logic
as humans understand. It truly is operational at what we (humans) might call a
supernatural level. Does this mean you should follow blindly? That is where it
comes down to you and what you believe. No, I’m not trying to judge you.
Closing…
Editor, you appeared to “win” or “shoot down” in our last exchange on the
ABC/NFP language of love distinction. But what it really got back to, I think,
was the issue of calling into question the Church teaching authority.
As I said, this will continue forever, neither side having a sound basis for
their arguments (atleast as perceived by those rejecting the Church teaching
authority), until a judgment is made about the natural law that is clearly
explained to all. Whether that judgment comes from the Church is open (it would
be questioned here anyway), but until that is resolved, we debate forever.
Good Day Editor,
the other
Michael
Welcome
back, Other Michael.
First, let me say that I use the terms ABC and NFP as a convention of
communication, not because I necessarily agree with what they imply. As you
noted, there are many who would question the "Natural" part of NFP.
I'm much happier with "birth control" and would favor calling NFP a
"biological method" in contrast with "barrier methods,"
"hormone methods," and even "abortificent methods" like the
IUD. Obviously, one still has to distinguish among these methods which are more
morally acceptable, and which not. But lumping IUD and condoms together under a
judgmental term like Artificial Birth Control doesn't really do much to bring
sanity to the discussion.
I strongly disagree with your conclusion that "neither side has a sound
basis for their arguments," although I recognize the diplomacy implied in
your statement. My position, as you know, is that the present teaching of the
Catholic Church is inherently contradictory, and so has no sound basis for its
arguments. I would further contend that those who favor allowing all non-abortive
methods of birth control have a very sound basis for their arguments--namely,
trusting that just as the Church recognizes that married couples know when they
need to space their children or refrain from having them, they can be trusted
to use birth control methods wisely to carry out their resolution until such
time as they are prepared to have children. Any other position other than
allowing for sexual relations ONLY during the fertile period of the month
(infertile and older couples excepted, obviously) doesn't hold up in the light
of rational examination.
I am, with you, deeply concerned about the *hit* that the Magisterium has taken
because of this teaching, but I don't think the solution is to disregard the
kinds of discussions and objections happening here and elsewhere in favor of a
unity based on obedience to authority for authority's sake. This is especially
so when considering a teaching based on Natural Law.