Contraception. Would A Little More Nuance Be Good?

[4588686]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba

[Aloysius]

indeed, your debate here is not with contraceptives, but with Catholic ecclesiology. Benedict has said that we should require no more of the Eastern Orthodox for unity than what was required in the first millenium, but if that was as far of a statement as you act like it is, then there would already be unity. There is not unity, because the Catholic ecclesiological position does NOT work the way you think it works, the looser "more nuanced" position of certain Eastern Orthodox Churches has be absolutely, definitively, and thoroughly rejected by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and no Roman Catholic can hold the liberal portions of Eastern Orthodoxy to have valid positions on birth control (remember that there are varied opinions in Eastern Orthodoxy, some that accept it as possible sometimes with the permission of a spiritual father and some that do not hold it as permissible ever).

the nuance of the Roman Catholic Church and all those in communion with her is that no artificial birth control that bastardizes the nature of sex by barrier or by altering hormonal chemistry; it permits the use of only natural methods of planning around birth. the only leeway for potential nuance is what degree to which one can permit THAT, natural family planning, is permissible. there is some grey area as to what constitutes serious reasons and when and to what extent it can be used.

your position is absolutely at odds with Catholic teaching, though, and that's a subject that's not called "nuance in contraception" but "ecclesiology". the debate over artificial contraception centers around the [b]fact [/b]that it acts contrary to nature, and Christian teaching considers things that act contrary to nature to be evil. (things that act "unnaturally" are not necessarily, like planes or trains or spaceships, it's when things are contrary to nature and distort reality that they are evil). it's not so much the idea of the purposes of sex being procreative that is at the core, because natural family planning can include sex that is not necessarilyintended procreatively (though one's attitude must always be open to life), the whole crux of it is that it is contrary to the good nature of sex.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='HopefulBride' timestamp='1330516525' post='2394425']
I think you need to understand the definition of a Catholic, a Catholic School and the Catholic Church before you begin this discussion. Otherwise, it will be a never-ending trip round and round.
[/quote]The definition of a Catholic, and Catholic School, and the Catholic Church are all things that have changed over the years. Centuries. Millennia. That's one of the reasons why I suggest some nuance.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1330580985' post='2394869']
Wrong. While any bishop has the authority of being the shepherd of the souls entrusted to him, the infallible moral teaching authority is a charism that exists only for the bishops in union with the Pope. Any moral guidance issued outside this union is subject to error.
[/quote]Again, this is one Catholic point of view that has existed over the millennia, and it's not the most ancient one.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1330588368' post='2394878']
cooterhein, i don't understand why you aren't EO, with you defending them all the time. It just seems strange.
[/quote]That's a good question, and there is a good answer to that. I'm not EO because I'm not a primitivist. Not that you are either, of course- the mark of a Roman Catholic is not primitivism, but an inordinately high regard for all the things that were most important to Latin Catholics in southern and western Europe from approximately the 12th century through the 16th century. That's not primitivism- more of a laser focus on Christianity in the first millennium is primitivism, and that's what the EO have.

Again, I'm not a primitivist, but I will say it makes a whole lot more sense to focus on the first millennium of Christianity than it does to focus on the High Middle Ages. That's not to say I hate the High Middle Ages or seek to put them down- no more than I want to express disdain for Christianity in the first millennium. But there is such a thing as an inordinately high regard for something, and Roman Catholics exemplify that beautifully.

And if I may, it seems strange to me that Catholics so often act as if the EO do not exist, particularly when the input of EO bishops is relevant to a topic. I shouldn't be the one who points out their relevance- you should. Have you been on any EO forums? They act like Roman Catholicism exists and is relevant. They also seem to understand you guys a lot better than you understand them. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but by and large, that's pretty much how it is. They obviously disagree with you in all the obvious places, but your stuff gets addressed when it's relevant.

Edited March 2, 2012 by cooterhein

[Aloysius]

Catholic ecclesiology does not actually consider the position of some bishops who are in schism from our Church relevant to this moral teaching, at least not just because they are bishops. Their position would be relevant if they were expressing an authentic Christian morality, but they are not. they are a few schismatic bishops who are holding to a liberalized modernist heretical view about contraceptives that has never been held in the history of the Church. again, your ecclesiological beefs with Catholicism are an interesting topic, but they're a red herring in your disagreement with the Church on contraception. Catholic ecclesiology, no matter what you'd like it to be, does not recognize ANY bishop's authority to reverse millenia of Church teaching on sexual morality (just because it was sheep-skin condoms once instead of carcinogenic pharmaceutical pills that were being condemned doesn't mean the condemnation isn't very old), let alone schismatic eastern bishops.

I think we should definitely recognize the East more than we do, but they don't get a free pass to overturn sexual morality just because they have apostolic succession. nor would a Roman Catholic bishop, nor would the Pope of Rome himself have the authority, for if any man comes, even an Apostle of the Lord, and preaches a contradicting Gospel, let them be anathema.

[HopefulBride]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1330652763' post='2395159']
The definition of a Catholic, and Catholic School, and the Catholic Church are all things that have changed over the years. Centuries. Millennia. That's one of the reasons why I suggest some nuance.

[/quote]

Would you please explain how they've changed? or better yet what do you believe a Catholic is? or the Church itself for that matter. I wasn't under the impression that it's changed, in either case, I welcome enlightenment from any knowledgeable source.

[Slappo]

Props times 1,000 for Aloysius!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1330469824' post='2394232']From a Catholic perspective? Because of the Eastern bishops. Your bishops have authority, and so do theirs. Their authority might not affect you directly at this time, but it makes for a unique relationship and a unique interaction with the differences that you have between you. From my own perspective- my POV on authority is much different from yours. My understanding is this: The authority that comes from relevant expertise is the only authority that ever means anything. So on the issue of contraception, I have a tendency to be more trusting of medical professionals than of bishops who claim a divine authority in the absence of relevant expertise. Your reply is about to give me reason to reference that in just a minute, too.[/quote]I'll respond to these in order, but your point of view on authority will not work in the Catholic Church. It might be relevant outside the Church, but it cannot apply to the Church herself. Al states this well above.

[quote]Based on relevant expertise, this is false. Not just unsubstantiated, but false.[/quote]What more is there to sex when the procreative aspect is taken away? There is pleasure. There is bonding. There is procreation. Procreation is obviously excluded by contraception. Bonding is not complete without the procreative aspect because bonding cannot take place without total giving, and total giving is excluded when you exclude your ability to procreate. Such sexual acts are therefore reduced to partial bonding and pleasure. If you want expertise on this, I'll give you lots of expertise. I'm not sure exactly how you find this statement wrong because you didn't substantiate the claim at all.

[quote]Again, this is false. Based on the expertise of people whose careers are in fields most relevant to the issue, complete union between man and woman is quite possible when contraception is being used, and the meaning of sex is not at risk in the slightest.

What you're giving me here is something that I like to compare to "rugaru tales." You're probably wondering what a rugaru is, and I will tell you- it's a legendary monster-creature similar to a werewolf whose mythic origins lie in France. The legend was retold in the southern parts of the United States, particularly within the Cajun culture. According to one variation of the tale, Cajun children who didn't take Lent seriously would be hunted down and killed by a rugaru. But this would only happen if you broke Lent seven years in a row, so most of these kids weren't really looking over their shoulders. If I can make a parallel here, you're certainly free to take Lent as seriously as you want. Just don't make up any were-tales in the process, because if you insist on continuing to believe those kinds of things, I will have to give you a hard time about it. And again, you're certainly free to take Onanism just as seriously as you want. But don't make up tales.

Your stories of partial bonding and lack of meaning are similar to the rugaru tales in that they're entirely untrue. What sets your stories apart, however, is the comparative ease with which they are debunked. This is where relevant expertise comes in. Who is it that can either confirm or deny the veracity of these stories pertaining to "lack of meaning" and "incomplete union" or the decimation of "the very meaning of sex itself"? People with medical, psychological, and neurological expertise, of course.[/quote]Complete union is impossible without the procreative aspect. Pope John Paul II speaks to this. Janet Smith speaks to this. Humanae Vitae speaks to this. The entire Church has spoken to this. What our society understands as giving is not complete giving. It's merely an image of what is complete giving. The ability to procreate is included in sexual acts and withholding this by definition means withholding something from sex. That's how it works.

You have also said that religious authority doesn't matter. If we believe in God and that God is the author of the relationship between man and woman, which obviously the Church does, then it is the final authority on how that relationship should work. If we don't agree on that, then why do we care what the Church's teaching is? It's irrelevant in that case. I say this because it won't work to bring in secular arguments on sexuality and the meaning of sex when the Church sees much more present through its faith.

[quote]This is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Your relationship with the East is far different, far more complex, and far messier than it is with any other group of Christians. So it's important that you be able to articulate some of the intricacies of it and the way in which it informs the nature of your disagreements with them, which will inevitable be different from your disagreements with Protestants. Knowing what your leaders say about Eastern authority, what they meant, what should be seen as "poetic language" and what should not- this is nuance. This is a good thing, because your unique relationship with the East necessitates it.

So when there's a Pentarchy made up of five Sees and the See of Rome separates itself from the other four, how does that fulfill the goal of bringing about Christian unity?

Eh. We'll see. I wonder how many of the Eastern Orthodox would have echoed that sentiment between the Schism and the 19th century. I guess that has something to do with the extent to which Onanism was taken seriously at different places and times throughout Catholic history, though.

I'm not suggesting that the West should change its teachings to match the East, any more than the East should change its teachings to match the West. I am suggesting that appeals to Sacred Tradition could acknowledge the existence of the East, though. I'm also suggesting that you could look there every once in awhile and say "Oh yeah, look at that, based on what they're doing it evidently is possible to maintain unity while permitting bishops to teach some different things on this matter." I'm suggesting that while you agree with your teachings and disagree with theirs, you interact with Eastern Orthodoxy appropriately- and this would entail some points of contrast with the way you would interact with Protestant disagreement.[/quote]The problem with your suggestion here is twofold: 1) the Church recognizes the fullness of truth within itself and won't find it elsewhere. I know this isn't an argument why it shouldn't dialogue, but the way the Church operates, especially in cases so well established like contraception, is to stand by its teachings without fail. 2) The problem with looking East is that the East does not have the proper faculties for dealing with the modern world. I realize that I have not tried in the least to prove this claim, but the Eastern Orthodox themselves must recognize a difficulty with the modern world since their doctrine is literally stuck in the 11th Century or so. I could write forever on the historical nuances in our relationship with the East, but I don't think it'll illuminate our present discussion at all.

Essentially I see our discussion as two distinct issues: 1) the Church's relationship with the East which does not pertain in this case and 2) the Church's definition of the marital act and how it relates to modern society. The first one pertains to your original topic and the second was my off-topic addition.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1330652763' post='2395159']
That's a good question, and there is a good answer to that. I'm not EO because I'm not a primitivist.[/quote]

that's actually not really a good answer. Why aren't you a primitivist? And why is that such an important distinction.

[quote]Roman Catholics exemplify that beautifully.[/quote]
aw you think we're pretty

[quote]
And if I may, it seems strange to me that Catholics so often act as if the EO do not exist, particularly when the input of EO bishops is relevant to a topic. I shouldn't be the one who points out their relevance- you should. Have you been on any EO forums? They act like Roman Catholicism exists and is relevant. They also seem to understand you guys a lot better than you understand them. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but by and large, that's pretty much how it is. They obviously disagree with you in all the obvious places, but your stuff gets addressed when it's relevant.
[/quote]

I have much respect for Eastern Christianity. They have a discipline that I really admire and is very beautiful, and I plan on learning more about the Eastern rites (although prob'ly Eastern Catholic churches, which have essentially the same liturgy as EO churches, but have reconciled with Rome). The reason we may act like they don't exist is probably an issue of numbers and culture. Not many EO churches in the Americas, and of the small number lots of the members exist within their own cultural enclave (nothing wrong with that) but I don't speak Russian or Greek and whenever I'm looking into info on EO, I run into a LOT of that. I'd urge you not to be so cynical and assume that we don't care about our separated brethren in the East and flippantly dismiss whatever they have to say. I personally have spent many sleepless nights and tears of pain and confusion on this separation

However, despite this abiding respect I have for Eastern Christians, like others have said, they do not have the authority to contravene divine teaching. The issue of contraception has been settled. Roughly the process for defining doctrine and dogma (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that a question arises, theologians and scholars debate about it for years, decades. maybe centuries, and then the Magisterium of the Church makes a declaration about what positions are acceptable and orthodox, and which ones are heretical.

Sometimes there is room for nuance, as with Thomism and Molinism. Both schools reconcile free-will and grace in different manners, and picking either side, or developing a new theory within the bounds of already defined doctrine is totally okie dokes. A molinist can't call a Thomist a heretic or vice versa. Another issue is the death penalty. You can have many varying opinions from: the DP should be abolished, to the DP should remain as a means to protect the innocent, and many points in between and still be an upstanding Catholic. There is TONS of nuance in private devotions (some are partial to the rosary, some have devotions to a saint), nuance in vocation (eastern churches have a pretty fantastic emphasis on the monastic life which is razzle dazzle).

What I'm trying to say is that there is nuance in a lot of things within Catholic teaching and just everyday Catholic practice. But some matters there are no room for nuance. EO would agree with the RC that transubstantiation essential, and just because a few bishops are like well, it could be symbolic, or (less extreme but still problematic) the Real Presence of Christ exists among the consecrated bread, or some form of consubstantiation--that doesn't mean the Pope is just being a narrow-minded hard-arse when he condemns their positions as heretical.

You're on two different treads of thought. Firstly the RC's relationship with EO, and the issue of contraception. It would probly help to stick to one at a time.

[mortify]

Peace in Christ during this holy season

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1329092184' post='2386096']
My question in general: Isn't it a little bit necessary to nuance and qualify the contraception thing in ways that are different from, say, the abortion thing? Quite often, I see people group them together and say "All these things are completely unacceptable" and that is that. But it seems (to me) that there needs to be a little more nuance.

Here's why.

As you know (but maybe don't put in terms this blunt), the Catholic Church is in schism. Has been for quite some time. Probably will be for at least a few more centuries. Nevertheless, there are other bishops (apostolic succession and all) that exist. They claim the same teaching authority that your bishops claim. Some of the things they say are a little different from what your guys say, but while they're not your guys, don't their teachings mean a little bit more than nothing?
[/quote]

Orthodox Christians are not a unified grouple like us Romans. There is a wide divergence among our Eastern brethren, and this includes over issues like contraception. But if you ask any of the serious Orthodox followers, they will tell you exactly what you will here from any serious Roman, and that is that using contraception is sinful.

For me it's a none issue, contraception is contrary to the natural law, is grave matter, and is therefore sinful. No person can engage in it without seriously hampering their relationship with God. And no person can use it, and justify it rationally. There simply is no argument for it, other than the base argument that people may do as they wish, even if it destroys their body, and reduces their partner to an object of desire.

I find it funny how as a society that is ever more "green" oriented, and seeking organic products, and being in tune with nature. We would still condone something as unnatural as oral contracption and latex condoms!

Go natural!