If you look closely, you'll see the pope is wearing glasses. That's right. He's misusing his God-given ears and nose as an artificial platform for glasses. But as any Thomist will tell you, that's a morally disordered behavior. The pope has wickedly redirected his body parts to an end contrary to God's design for the nose and ears.
No doubt some zealous Catholics will accuse me of having PhotoShopped the picture to depict the pope in a morally compromising position. But this isn't the only time I've seen the pope indulge in this flagrantly unnatural behavior. If you surf the web you will find other pictures of the pope self-abusing his ears and nose. So you don't have to take my word for it. Evidence is just a mouse-click away.
Some of our Catholic friends may consider this post (and others) as gratuitous, but I rather like them. There are many and varied clever ways to reductio ad absurdum the argument from "natural" design and use.
ReplyDeleteRather than being worthy of a believer, the "'unnatural' uses of creation is sin' argument is most useful for filling in the blanks in the Biblical text.
I have yet to see one of our Catholic friends actually address one of these posts head-on. Gratuitous or not, if they would deign to satisfactorily answer just one of these it would foster a great deal of good will.
Even in "Consensus Patrum" our Catholic friends chose to argue against such absurd applications of their moral teaching (such as the man with no arms using his feet as hands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIOYLMnTt0s).
On the Catholic view, both the armless man and the pope are engaging in very grave sin. While our Catholic friends are willing to come after contracepted married believers, why aren't they willing to condemn these other men as well?
That is: "... our Catholic friends chose NOT to argue against..." :D
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that Catholics (or at least the conservative ones who oppose contraception) would counter that poor eyesight is a detraction from the body's proper workings, whereas pregnancy is an example of the body's proper workings.
ReplyDeleteOf course, applied consistently this would mean that using NFP (ie, deliberately and selectively timed partial abstinence) is no more a morally licit alternative to condoms/ the Pill than burning people alive is a morally licit alternative to "shedding blood" in the literal sense... Oh. Wait.
Hey Steve and Mr. Fosi!
ReplyDeleteI’ll take a peon’s shot at it!
The reason why wearing glasses is good is because it is in conformity with the purpose of the eyes. It aids the natural design by helping the eyes to see better. Same with pain, as mentioned in a previous post – although this one is more difficult to sort through. The natural purpose of pain is not to feel pain per se, but to enable us, through this sensation, to avoid some greater harm to the body. When we deaden pain in preparation for surgery, this is in conformity with the purpose of pain since the pain would in this case be inhibitive towards the necessary healing and contrary to its purpose. In such cases, deadening the pain actually aids the natural purpose of pain. Contraception, on the other hand, is against the natural design of our reproductive organs.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Hi again, Pete. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see you willing to come and reason.
What then to the man who's arms are missing and thus appropriates the use of his feet as hands?
Hands and feet are used to perform dexterous actions.
ReplyDeleteAs with the loss of other sense organs, the ability of the remaining organs is increased. And when we lose one of two organs of the same function, such as a kidney, and the remaining kidney has to work harder to make up for the loss; it seems to be a combination of these same principles at work when someone loses an organ of dexterity, and the actions fall to the remaining organs.
We make a right use of this natural faculty when we use our feet, for example, to bring the good news to the people, and to crush the head of Satan with, I suppose, a boot stomp (cf. Romans 10:15, 16:20). :)
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
NFP = "squinting"
ReplyDeleteContraception, on the other hand, is against the natural design of our reproductive organs.
ReplyDeleteExcept that reproduction is not the only function of those organs.
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"The reason why wearing glasses is good is because it is in conformity with the purpose of the eyes. It aids the natural design by helping the eyes to see better."
My post wasn't addressing the morality of glasses. My post was addressing the morality of the contra-natural use of the ears and nose to support the the glasses.
I think my last comment was moderated. Let me try again…
ReplyDeleteSteve wrote, “My post wasn't addressing the morality of glasses. My post was addressing the morality of the contra-natural use of the ears and nose to support the glasses.”
You’re right, sorry. As far as I can tell, supporting glasses is not opposed to the purpose of the external structures of these organs.
In Christ,
Pete Holter
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"You’re right, sorry. As far as I can tell, supporting glasses is not opposed to the purpose of the external structures of these organs."
Noses and ears were designed to prop up glasses?
Pete wrote, “Contraception, on the other hand, is against the natural design of our reproductive organs.”
ReplyDeleteRhology responded, “Except that reproduction is not the only function of those organs.”
Procreation is inherent to the purpose of sex because sex is the act that gives the sperm and egg access to each other, and the designed purpose of this access is procreation. The union of love is also inherent to the purpose of sex, while the pleasure of sex tends toward both purposes. Contraception and rape are both opposed to the purpose of our reproductive organs in that contraception is opposed to procreation and rape is opposed to love.
With love in Christ,
Pete
Steve wrote, “Noses and ears were designed to prop up glasses?”
ReplyDeleteHi Steve!
No, they were not specifically designed for this except insofar as God made our noses and ears knowing that we would at this point in history use them for this purpose. This secondary purpose that they are able to serve does not contradict their natural purposes.
With love in the LORD,
Pete
If the problem really is opposing natural function, then we could note that gloves oppose the natural function of feeling, ear buds oppose the natural function of hearing, and a welding mask opposes the natural function of seeing.
ReplyDeleteImagine a construction company that operated according to that understanding of natural law.
TurretinFan wrote, “If the problem really is opposing natural function, then we could note that gloves oppose the natural function of feeling, ear buds oppose the natural function of hearing, and a welding mask opposes the natural function of seeing.”
ReplyDeleteHey, TurretinFan!
I think we need to move beyond the natural function itself and look at the purpose of the natural function. And not just the purpose of the natural function, but this purpose when a particular activity is in view. This is where we discern the will of God and whether our actions are opposed to the design of our bodies.
Ear buds are actually used to protect the function of hearing when the sensory input is too high, so I wouldn’t oppose these to one another.
Without the mask, our eyes would actually be damaged by the brightness of the flame, or else the flame would at least make it harder to see the work at hand; so the mask is actually being used to protect and enhance the function of seeing in that particular task, similar to the ear buds.
For the glove scenario, the purpose of feeling is to judge the temperature and texture of an object, to judge the strength of our grip upon an object, etc., and this information is used to make other decisions, such as whether we should hold on to something too hot or too cold, whether we need to increase or decrease the strength of our hold, etc. We use gloves to enhance our grip and protect our hands while sacrificing a measure of sensation, but wearing gloves is not opposed to the purpose of sensation, which is to guide the use of our hands in the engaged upon task.
Now, if we plug our ears when someone is reading the Bible, we might have a problem. :)
My wife is banning me from posting for the rest of the day. May God bless you!
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
"Procreation is inherent to the purpose of sex because sex is the act that gives the sperm and egg access to each other..."
ReplyDeletea) There is more than one purpose to the organs that are used for sex. For example, the copulative organs are also used for elimination.
b) And there can be more than one purpose to the act(s) of sex. While reproduction is one purpose, pleasure is another purpose.
This argument is akin to suggesting that the use of bubble gum is intrinsically disordered, because digestion is inherent to purpose of the teeth, lips, and tongue, in chewing, since chewing gives food access to the stomach.
One hopefully sees the absurdity of that argument.
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"No, they were not specifically designed for this except insofar as God made our noses and ears knowing that we would at this point in history use them for this purpose."
I see. Likewise, God made the hands of the Boston Strangler knowing that he would at this point in history use them to murder women.
Pete said...
ReplyDelete"This secondary purpose that they are able to serve does not contradict their natural purposes."
I see. Suppose a soldier loses both legs to an I.E.D. He now walks on his hands. Doesn't that "contradict" their natural purpose?
If your explanation regarding the glove is workable, then all someone needs to do to show that their use of contraception is appropriate is to show that it is part of a larger regime of reproductive health, thereby actually promoting overall fecundity, even though "sacrificing a measure of" fecundity in a particular instance, perhaps by avoiding harmfully over-frequent pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteBut, that isn't accepted by the anti-contraception minority of your church. So, it seems that gloves remain a good counter-example.
"God made the hands of the Boston Strangler knowing that he would at this point in history use them to murder women."
ReplyDeleteActually, Steve, he never used his hands; he used a cord or nylons, thus hampering the natural use of his hands--or perhaps he was just maximizing their use.
He used his hands to manipulate the cord. And God foreknew that's how he'd used the hands God gave him.
ReplyDeleteJust responding to Pete on his own terms.
Pete said...
ReplyDelete"The natural purpose of pain is not to feel pain per se, but to enable us, through this sensation, to avoid some greater harm to the body."
In the age of reproductive technologies, it's possible to achieve the same goal while bypassing initial steps in the natural process of procreation. So by your logic, sex could be purely recreational as long as other methods achieve the same (reproductive) goal.
"so the mask is actually being used to protect and enhance the function of seeing in that particular task"
ReplyDeleteJust as homologous artificial insemination enhances the procreative abilities of infertile couples who cannot procreate via normal conjugal congress. But the RCC rules that as out of bounds.
We can use glasses, hearing aids, blood infusions, surgeries, vitamin and steroid therapies, antibiotics, we can pump ourselves full of pharmaceuticals; every organ can be aided by artificial means to "enhance" functioning except the reproductive organs.
The problem with Catholic moral theology, as with Catholic theology generally, is its vulnerability to the "argument from the heap". (Eg, 1. If I am near the North Pole, and take one step further south, I am still near the North Pole. 2. Therefore, if I repeat this process numerous times, and take fifty thousand steps further south I am still "near the North Pole", even if I'm now somewhere around Vancouver.)
ReplyDeleteSo, eg, Catholicism starts with "Mary is the Theotokos" to protect the doctrine of the Trinity... and takes it so far as to end up with a de facto Quaternity (which will probably be formalised de fide sometime around 2050-2060).
Likewise, Catholicism begins quite rightly with "infanticide and killing babies in utero are wrong" and "children are a blessing from God", and ends up with "It's okay to use NFP to select the number and sex of your children - or even to vow lifelong celibacy - but it's wrong a post-menopausal women with a violent, promiscuous husband to wear a condom or diaphragm so he doesn't infect her with HIV." "Open to life" has turned into "endangering life" so gradually that no one up close has noticed, just as the heirs of Mao Zedong have become rampantly capitalist.
I'm glad that Pete has been willing to carry over his good-faith discussion from the "Consensus" meta. I also understand being banned by my spouse from posting. :D
ReplyDeleteI hope that he is able to return and answer some of the current challenges.
TurretinFan wrote, “If your explanation regarding the glove is workable, then all someone needs to do to show that their use of contraception is appropriate is to show that it is part of a larger regime of reproductive health, thereby actually promoting overall fecundity, even though "sacrificing a measure of" fecundity in a particular instance, perhaps by avoiding harmfully over-frequent pregnancy.
ReplyDelete“But, that isn't accepted by the anti-contraception minority of your church. So, it seems that gloves remain a good counter-example.”
The glove example would parallel contraception if the purpose of sensation resolved in experiencing the sensation itself. But I think we recognize that the purpose of sensation goes beyond this to a greater purpose of enabling us to make decisions and to make movements of the body in conformity with the sensory information we’re receiving. If I remain with this purpose of sensation in the hands, I don’t think that glove use defeats it. If the purpose of sensation is to “guide the use of our hands in the engaged upon task,” gloves can be used to aid this purpose. As, for example, when we have to reach for something that’s become stuck in a thorn bush.
Gloves can also diminish our ability to handle objects without being used for that purpose. If we wear gloves to protect our hands from dangerous chemicals, it may make it harder to manipulate the equipment that we are working with, but this decrease in dexterity would be the undesired “double effect.” In its “double effect,” this would be similar to the Catholic who has her cancerous uterus removed. In the diminution of dexterity, perhaps this would be akin to having marital relations in a hot tub, where the increased temperature may decrease fertility.
Gloves are a good example. I can see arguments turning this example in both directions. But contraception seems pretty clear cut against the purpose of God for these organs. Gloves, not so much. Maybe the argument from the natural law isn’t strong enough and I’ll have to resort to the Scriptures for this clarity and certainty. On the other hand, maybe you’ll convince me to advocate for the abolition of glove use. :) But let me ask you this: if you had to distinguish between using gloves and using contraception given the purposeful design of our bodies, what would you say? Do they appear to be the same to you?
Love,
Pete
Steve wrote, “I see. Likewise, God made the hands of the Boston Strangler knowing that he would at this point in history use them to murder women.”
ReplyDeleteAnd that was an immoral use of his hands. Wearing glasses doesn’t seem to be either immoral or contrary to nature.
Steve also wrote, “I see. Suppose a soldier loses both legs to an I.E.D. He now walks on his hands. Doesn't that "contradict" their natural purpose?”
I don’t think it contradicts the natural use of his hands. It seems to be an improvement upon their already existing natural ability. But if we are walking on our hands in order to spite the usefulness of our legs… well, Paul says that the hands and arms aren’t allowed to mock the legs and feet like that. :)
By the way… is there a place where I can find your conversion stories to Christ? You and the others posting on here. I’d love to see how you came to be known by God.
With love in Christ,
Pete
The problem for me is the stumblingblock inherent in the picture.
ReplyDeleteIt is so small, I have to rely upon the one who reproduced it in here that indeed the Pope is committing gross immoralities with his nose and ears.
Should I just rely upon his representation?
Should I commit gross immorality and go buy eyeglasses and don them to see more clearly that the representation of gross immorality is being committed?
Or should I compromise and go buy a magnifying glass and use it to see if the representation is correct and the Pope is indeed committing gross immorality?
What say you?
Is using a magnifying glass committing gross immorality or not?
I would have to use my brain and hands and an automobile and some money to drive to the store and buy the spyglass to avoid committing gross immorality?
More importantly, it seems, is this question. Is this natural law-breaker article becoming a stumblingblock to me?
EA wrote, “Just as homologous artificial insemination enhances the procreative abilities of infertile couples who cannot procreate via normal conjugal congress. But the RCC rules that as out of bounds.”
ReplyDeleteGreetings, EA!
We think that the unitive and procreative purposes are both inherent to the sex act, and that they can’t be separated from the sex act. Artificial insemination enhances the procreative aspect, but contradicts the unitive aspect that God has purposed to be present in the procreative act. The Church condones some forms of fertility treatment, but has rejected artificial insemination, as you noted.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Natamllc,
ReplyDeleteI realize this is a natural law thread, but still, no Scripture? Are you feeling ok? It’s so unnatural of you. :)
Have a blessed day!
In Christ,
Pete
Mr. Fosi wrote, “I hope that he is able to return and answer some of the current challenges.”
ReplyDeleteWell, I tried. I’m sure everyone will let me know how miserably I failed. Bombs away! :)
Love,
Pete
Holter,
ReplyDeleteyou pressed me to hard and make me do it:::>
Pro 16:19 It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.
Pro 16:20 Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
...
Mic 2:6 "Do not preach"--thus they preach-- "one should not preach of such things; disgrace will not overtake us."
Mic 2:7 Should this be said, O house of Jacob? Has the LORD grown impatient? Are these his deeds? Do not my words do good to him who walks uprightly?
And while we are at it, I do hope your wife is a true believing sister and completely adheres to this:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Thanks again Pete for your responses.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of scripture here doesn't bother me because we (you and I) dealt with some of it in the "Consensus" meta. I think have a good grasp on my argument and yours regarding contraception, how it is or is not supported by scripture and how that seems to depend on one's hermeneutic. I'd be interested in seeming some of the other fellows deal with it a bit, but mostly to see what other approaches there are.
At this point I am enjoying seeing the this "natural law" argument being explored (without me having to do much of the exploring). I'm not sure if "natural law" is the officially proper label for it though. Perhaps someone will speak briefly about it.
I've not been confronted by this type of argumentation IRL, so I consider this (and other) interactions here at TriB to be good practice.
"But I think we recognize that the purpose of sensation goes beyond this to a greater purpose of enabling us to make decisions and to make movements of the body in conformity with the sensory information we’re receiving."
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of copulation likewise goes beyond procreation to a greater purpose ...
Do you see the problem with these ad hoc rationalizations? They can be consistently applied to the acts of all of our organs.
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"And that was an immoral use of his hands. Wearing glasses doesn’t seem to be either immoral or contrary to nature."
You have a habit of moving the goalpost every time I respond to you. You make a statement. I respond to you on your own terms. You reply by adding a caveat you didn't include in your original statement.
You don't have a consistent principle. You're just improvising as you go along.
Pete said...
ReplyDelete"I don’t think it contradicts the natural use of his hands. It seems to be an improvement upon their already existing natural ability."
Walking on our hands is an improvement over walking on our feet?
"But let me ask you this: if you had to distinguish between using gloves and using contraception given the purposeful design of our bodies, what would you say? Do they appear to be the same to you?"
ReplyDeleteGiven only that, it would be difficult to identify a meaningful distinction. Hands are no less purposefully designed the more private parts of our body.
- TurretinFan
I wonder if JPII received any immoral, unnatural pain-deadening medications after he was shot?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if Bene XVI were to need emergency open heart surgery if he would be sedated, or simply be strapped to the operating table hand and foot with lanyards and opened up?
In the latter case, would chewing on a towel to prevent grinding his teeth to dust, or gnawing off his tongue be permissable, or would that be an example of an inappropriate and unnatural act of mastication?
Is mastication for personal pleasure permissable, or immoral under Romanist ethics?
In Christ,
CD
Word Verification: hoott
"We think that the unitive and procreative purposes are both inherent to the sex act, and that they can’t be separated from the sex act."
ReplyDeleteCatholics use NFP precisely to separate the "unitive" aspect of conjugal relations from the procreative aspect.
What other purpose does NFP serve?
The refined version, EA, says that one is morally obliged not to separate the two by any positive act. The allegation is then that the timing method of contraception (aka NFP) does not involve a positive act. It's amazing how much more complicated not involving a positive act is than simply wearing protection. But that's one argument I've heard.
ReplyDeleteSteve wrote, “Walking on our hands is an improvement over walking on our feet?”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think so. But I do think that someone who can walk on his hands is more skillful than someone who can’t. He has an improved use of his arms is what I meant.
Steve wrote, “You have a habit of moving the goalpost every time I respond to you. You make a statement. I respond to you on your own terms. You reply by adding a caveat you didn't include in your original statement.
“You don't have a consistent principle. You're just improvising as you go along.”
Sorry. I think that using our hands to kill someone is immoral but not against nature. I don’t see eyeglasses as being either.
You think that using our facial features to support a manmade device contradicts their nature. Being facetious, of course. But their nature is not to not support manmade devices. Therefore, supporting manmade devices is not against their nature.
Sorry for my inconsistencies. If I’ve moved the goalpost again, I’m sorry for that too.
By the grace of Christ,
Pete
Natamllc wrote, “And while we are at it, I do hope your wife is a true believing sister and completely adheres to this:
ReplyDelete“Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’”
There he is!
Beckee says “Yes” to her being a true believing sister and to adhering to this verse. Thanks for asking.
In Christ,
Pete
EA wrote, “Catholics use NFP precisely to separate the "unitive" aspect of conjugal relations from the procreative aspect.
ReplyDelete“What other purpose does NFP serve?”
Hello again, EA!
For one, NFP “favor[s] the education of an authentic freedom” (Catechism 2370). This means that it tends toward the freedom of the spirit of celibacy and the fruit of the Spirit: self-control. I think that NFP should also be seen as a concession to our weaknesses and the hardships of married life. It’s not the ideal. But the acts involved in NFP are not intrinsically disordered, as we believe is the case in the use of a contraceptive. Even where the intent is the same, the objective differences between NFP and contraception are the actions themselves and the fact that NFP doesn’t cause infertility. Since the actions involved in NFP are themselves objectively permissible, the reason why NFP is used is determinative to its morality. NFP can be used with a selfish intent and without serious cause, and can therefore be sinful. The Manichaeans, for example, practiced a sort of NFP; but they did so because they viewed procreation as an evil. This would be an evil use of NFP. Our use of NFP should be made in conformance with the rest of our Christian framework of morality.
With love in Christ,
Pete
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don’t think so. But I do think that someone who can walk on his hands is more skillful than someone who can’t. He has an improved use of his arms is what I meant."
But they weren't designed for walking. That's contrary to their natural purpose. So it must be immoral, according to natural law ethics, for an amputee to walk on his hands.
"Sorry. I think that using our hands to kill someone is immoral but not against nature."
Are you even attempting to follow your own argument? You said:
"No, they were not specifically designed for this except insofar as God made our noses and ears knowing that we would at this point in history use them for this purpose."
So you seemed to be citing God's foreknowledge of the outcome as an implicit endorsement of the outcome. Hence, my analogy with the Boston Strangler.
"But their nature is not to not support manmade devices. Therefore, supporting manmade devices is not against their nature."
I see. And the nature of noses is not to not sniff crack cocaine. Therefore, sniffing crack cocaine is not against their nature. Consequently, natural law justifies crack cocaine use.
Mr. Fosi wrote, “At this point I am enjoying seeing this "natural law" argument being explored (without me having to do much of the exploring). I'm not sure if "natural law" is the officially proper label for it though. Perhaps someone will speak briefly about it.”
ReplyDeleteMr. Fosi!
I think I like your name because it reminds me of the Fousa on that Madagascar animated movie.
Here is a book I heard about on Catholic radio: http://www.amazon.com/Line-Through-Heart-Natural-Contradiction/dp/1610170032/ref=pd_sim_b_4
I’ve not read it myself. Maybe I should have before I tried to share something on this thread. Whoops! If you want to get in touch via email, I’d be glad to send you a copy.
I hope you have a blessed night!
In Christ,
Pete Holter
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Even where the intent is the same, the objective differences between NFP and contraception are the actions themselves and the fact that NFP doesn’t cause infertility."
I see. In The Little Foxes, Regina doesn't cause Horace to die from a heart attack. She simply withholds the heart medication.
Steve wrote, “So you seemed to be citing God's foreknowledge of the outcome as an implicit endorsement of the outcome.”
ReplyDeleteHi Steve!
I agree that glasses have an implicit endorsement in God’s foreknowledge, but only because I’ve already assumed in saying this that they are not bad. I wasn’t using God’s foreknowledge in order to establish their goodness or lack thereof. I only meant to indicate that He designed our faces knowing that this would happen, and that only in this sense would we be able to say that our ears and nose were designed for this purpose.
Steve wrote, “I see. And the nature of noses is not to not sniff crack cocaine. Therefore, sniffing crack cocaine is not against their nature. Consequently, natural law justifies crack cocaine use.”
I don’t think that sniffing crack cocaine is in conformity with nature. But even if was in conformity with nature, it wouldn’t mean that it is moral to do it. And to not prohibit something is not to consequently justify it.
Awww, that’s all I have time for tonight. I hope to be back some other day. Thanks for letting me post on your blog, guys.
With love in Christ,
Pete
PETE SAID:
ReplyDelete"I only meant to indicate that He designed our faces knowing that this would happen, and that only in this sense would we be able to say that our ears and nose were designed for this purpose."
God also designed the hands of the Boston Stranger knowing that this would happen, and that only in this sense would he be able to say that his hands were designed for this purpose.
"I don’t think that sniffing crack cocaine is in conformity with nature."
You defined conformity with nature in negative terms: "But their nature is not to not support manmade devices. Therefore, supporting manmade devices is not against their nature."
Therefore, I simply drew a parallel, using the same double negation framework.
Once again, you're not tracking your own argument.
" But even if was in conformity with nature, it wouldn’t mean that it is moral to do it. And to not prohibit something is not to consequently justify it."
As usual, you keep tacking on additional caveats after the fact, which you didn't include in your original statement.
Your only operating principle is to modify your principle at will.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteDoes one sniff, or smoke crack cocaine?
The reason I ask is that is seems there could be a moral difference between sniffing/snorting and smoking crack cocaine depending on the arguments for/against natural use of the nose vs. the mouth/throat/lungs as God designed them.
For example one could theoretically "smoke" crack cocaine, but not inhale - or at least not intend to inhale - unless that would immorally circumvent God's intention that the lungs should naturally exchange air with the atmosphere, and the diaphragm should contract with each breath.
In Him,
CD
CD,
ReplyDeleteGood point. There's probably some subtle, but highly significant moral distinction regarding the mode of cocaine intake which a Thomist would draw. If it's natural, it's permissible–but if it's unnatural, it's wicked!
Steve wrote, “You defined conformity with nature in negative terms: ‘But their nature is not to not support manmade devices. Therefore, supporting manmade devices is not against their nature.’
ReplyDelete“Therefore, I simply drew a parallel, using the same double negation framework.
“Once again, you're not tracking your own argument.”
I think you’re raising issues that weren’t in view when the original statements were made and that this makes it appear to you as if I’m moving the line, when really, we’re considering additional material that was overlooked when the comparisons were being evaluated more simply under a restriction of variables and the restriction of my lack of any expertise with the subject. My deductive argument failed to take into consideration other factors necessary for determining what is “against nature.” Given the effect of glasses upon the nose when it is being used as a support, and considering the purpose of the nose to receive sensory data for us to act upon, etc., glasses are not opposed to the nature of the nose. The deduction I provided required unstated premises. Your counterargument made me aware of this, thank you.
If I’m not mistaken, I think that snorting cocaine is destructive to the nose. Doesn’t it destroy the septum? I view this as evidence that it is contrary to the nature of the nose.
Also, using our nose to arrive at a state tantamount to drunkenness, or whatever cocaine does to you, likewise seems to be against nature. With glasses, the nose is being used to aid the function of the eye. With cocaine, on the other hand, the nose is being used to confuse the function of the mind.
I am not an expert, so I’m sorry if I have once again moved the line.
Love,
Pete
Steve wrote, “I see. In The Little Foxes, Regina doesn't cause Horace to die from a heart attack. She simply withholds the heart medication.”
ReplyDeleteThis is close to the way we view things.
The way we compare NFP and contraception is by parallel with natural death and euthanasia. Christopher West makes this comparison and I think it is very helpful. Depending on the situation, if someone chooses to die an inevitable death through natural causes because the therapeutic remedies in his case are too expensive and otherwise too burdensome — taking into consideration, again, a comprehensive Christian moral framework — this is permissible; we can choose to allow ourselves to die rather than receive the treatment. We would take some positive actions and refrain from taking other positive actions in order to bring about the desired effect of a quicker, natural death. But if Someone seeks out a doctor to causally bring about this death, then we view what has been done as tantamount to murder and intrinsically evil. I think this parallel holds good with a major difference being that, as John Paul II noted in his Gospel of Life encyclical, contraception is a sin against chastity; and we would view euthanasia is a sin against justice.
May God bless you and your loved ones, Steve.
In Christ,
Pete
Of course, I cited that scene from The Little Foxes because letting him die by withholding his heart medication was morally equivalent to murder, even though she didn't positively cause his death.
ReplyDeletePete said...
ReplyDelete"I am not an expert, so I’m sorry if I have once again moved the line."
Yet I'm struck by the gap between your self-confidence and your admitted inexpertise. In trying to make a natural law argument that allows NFP while disallowing "artificial" contraception, you consistently fail to anticipate obvious counterexamples. You keep making unqualified statements that you must subsequently retrofit.
But in that event your level of confidence in the natural law propriety of NFP over against the natural law impropriety of "artificial" contraception isn't justified by your mastery of the issues (or lack thereof).
Why are you so sure of your position when you haven't thought through the implications of what you say? Instead of constantly resorting to rearguard actions to shore up your initial premise, you should reconsider your operating premise.
Were fingers designed by God to type out messages on keyboards?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that this sort of activity could be argued as being both immoral, and unnatural.
Especially when one considers that the keyboard in question is connected to an electronic device which facilitates communicating via artificial, unnatural means that doesn't employ the God given voices and ears with which we were originally equipped for natural communication.
Isn't participation in this blog meta at least potentially great wickedness?
In Him,
CD
Steve wrote, “In trying to make a natural law argument that allows NFP while disallowing "artificial" contraception, you consistently fail to anticipate obvious counterexamples. You keep making unqualified statements that you must subsequently retrofit.
ReplyDelete“But in that event your level of confidence in the natural law propriety of NFP over against the natural law impropriety of "artificial" contraception isn't justified by your mastery of the issues (or lack thereof).
“Why are you so sure of your position when you haven't thought through the implications of what you say? Instead of constantly resorting to rearguard actions to shore up your initial premise, you should reconsider your operating premise.”
The Church teaches that “ ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370). I am persuaded from the Scriptures that this is true. The Church teaches that contraception is opposed to the natural law. I consider the male and female bodies, the purpose of sex, the role of God as Creator, our being made in His image and likeness, and I agree. The authority given to the Church of God to make known the manifold wisdom of God and to declare the authentic interpretation of Scripture fills me with confidence. And the authority of Augustine doesn’t hurt. :)
Apart from papal encyclicals (Veritatis Splendor in particular), I’ve not read a single modern book dedicated to Catholic moral theology. So I don’t consider myself an expert in this field. I appreciate that morality can be a complex subject involving an evaluation of, in each particular act, the intent, the possible outcomes, the circumstances, the acts themselves, etc. This complexity makes our discussion difficult. Examples are given that appear to be similar at first; but, upon further inspection, they are found to not be completely analogous. And my incomprehensive principles derived through hasty generalizations didn’t help.
Maybe we can make some progress by working with the contraception/euthanasia parallel. I think this is a helpful parallel.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter