It seems like openness to life and unitive goals for a relationship are good values. There are lots of good values. What makes meeting this or that value discovered in natural law very serious or not so serious. Even if one shares these values, what reasons are given by the Church to make attaining some values more important than others? For example, it seems like the natural law would reveal that eating is for nourishment and drinking is to stay hydrated. Why isn't it evil to eat when one is not really hungry or in need of food? Why isn't it perverted and sinful to drink when one isn't thirsty? Why are murder and masturbation both grave matters? Why is birth control a mortal sin and not a venial sin? Seriously.
Actually eating and drinking when one is not hungry or thirsty is a sin. They both fall under the sin of glutony. One of the seven deadly sins.
So,
do you suspect that with 61% of adult Americans overweight that there will soon
be a papal commission on obesity, followed by an encyclical on this grave
intrinsic evil? And let's not forget smoking. We don't see other animals
cultivating tobacco and inhaling smoke. That's unnatural and inhibits the
body's absorption of oxygen. So just how many people are commiting mortal sins
everyday in the view of YOUR church?
I'm still waiting for an example of a medication that a healthy person takes to break something that isn't broken, with the exception of contraceptives, of course.
You must have missed this post?
It may be unnatural to interfere with the normal sleep-wake cycle when we use
anesthesia during surgery, sleeping pills to induce sleep or amphetamines to
stay awake for finals, but it is not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural to
interfere with the body's circadian rhythms by working graveyard shifts and
sleeping during the day and to regulate this changed regimen pharmaceutically,
but it's not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural for weight trainers and
atheletes to take synthetic steroids to strengthen muscles, and even illegal
for olympians to do so, but it is not intrinsically evil. It may be unnatural
to inhibit the body's hunger with appetitie suppressors, but it is not
intrinsically evil. There are dozens upon dozens of examples where
pharamaceutical regimens do NOT enhance bodily functions in a normal way but
rather inhibit biological clocks, circadian rhythms, sleep-wake cycles and
hormone metabolic cycles (such as regulate steroid levels to keep them at
natural levels and not abnormally high levels or low), but they aren't
intrinsically evil. But, for heuristic purposes, let's say some of the above
examples are going against nature in a manner that is evil, still there is
nothing that would give rise to a silly notion that they are so seriously evil
that God would be so offended by our machinations as to want to be apart from
us for Eternity. Regulation of fertility cyclicity, as a bilogical function, is
not different just because it involves our generative faculties.
Bad reactions to prescription
drugs kill more Americans annually than die on the nation's highways.
It is a well known fact that almost every drug we take to fix something in our
bodies also breaks something else. Listen to the litany of side effects in
television ads or read the many contraindications that come with your next
prescription. Further, many, many drugs are not natural biochemicals but are
synthetic and thus unnatural. Thus, the taking of most pharmaceuticals has intrinsically
evil components, both being unnatural/synthetic and inhibiting MANY normal
biological functions.
This is overcome, morally, by Aquinas' doctrine of double-effect, which is OT
in this consideration, which was merely to provide an example of medications
that break what isn't broken.
But let's pursue double effect anyway. If the Church allows a woman to take
birth control to overcome her complexion problems, even though it has
contraceptive efficacy at the same time, because the reason for the action
(clearing up one's complexion) is proportional to the seriousness of the
indirect bad effect (contraception), then what does this have to say about the
parvity of matter issue and the concept of proportionality in determining ABC
to be gravely evil?
At any rate, breaking what ain't broken through medication may be an indirect
effect but, once contraindications and side effects are known, it can hardly be
claimed that it is unforeseen although obviously it can be claimed to be
unintended, except in the cases of interfering with normal biological and
circadian rhythms associated with the sleep -wake cycle, or appetite
suppressors, or steroid catabolism.
See http://www.steroidlaw.com/article_full.asp?id=8
where the following was excerpted:
The concept of "natural" is quite complex, and becomes even more
perplexing when abutted against the concept of "bodybuilding." The
many health supplements sold by health food stores raise other interesting
issues, further complicating the evaluation of what is "natural."
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is sold as a natural food supplement. But is it
"natural" to ingest Vitamin C not by the ingestion of various fruits
and foods, but by swallowing it whole in processed tablet form? Further, how
can anyone argue that it's "natural" to take two, four or even more
grams of Vitamin C daily - so-called "megadoses" - when nobody could
possibly consume such quantities by eating food? Another example is creatine
monohydrate, a substance that has recently been widely marketed as a supplement
for building muscle. Red meat contains small quantities of creatine. But is it
"natural" to consume five, ten or (during so-called "loading
phases") up to a whopping thirty grams of creatine daily, when such
amounts could only be consumed through artificially manufactured products? And
yet, these wildly "un-natural" quantities are routinely consumed by
many so-called "natural" athletes. These "natural" athletes
have convinced themselves that such extreme dietary supplement practices are
perfectly natural, but for years have drawn a bright line to distinguish the
difference between natural and non-natural athletes: the use of supplemental
androgens. All supplemental androgens, including anabolic steroids, are
derivatives of testosterone, a naturally-occurring hormone in both men and
women. But unlike the athlete taking Vitamin C capsules or creatine powder to
enhance his performance, one taking supplemental testosterone tablets is no
longer considered "natural" and one taking supplemental testosterone
injections is even less natural. (Ironically, the more hazardous anabolic
steroids are orally ingested.)
Questions
were asked below about these topics, and, presumably, why the Church condemns
them.
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.
Note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that masturbation
needs to be considered in the context of one's development, and psychological
state.
Other questions? Comments?