I am a first cousin of Jack Haynes who has this blog. His wife has given me permission to write out Mr. Haynes' thoughts on sex and the church. Some of you may know Jack was contemplating joining the catholic church, but was troubled by two issues. I am from San Jose, Cal. and will try to record his thoughts as he has written them before and as he has expressed them to me. Never having blogged before I notice that the person usually identifies themselves by initials or some clever name. My initials are RCA. If you have any doubt as to my permission to write this please ask his wife Alice who also uses this site. The other issue besides sex and the church is infallibility. I claim no expertise on these issues, not being catholic, but I think I know the general area enough to express with reasonable accuracy Jack's feelings. I have looked up the comments he has made as an aid in defining his stance.
Jack believes the catholic church is obsessed with sex. And in a negative sense. From sexual thoughts, to masturbation, to contraceptives, to sexual intercourse, to permissable "techniques" in sex Jack believes the church clearly says anathema to all. This of course is best shown in that all clergy, male and female,in the church have as their goal total chastity. Should this goal be achieved by all clergy both before their ordination, which it seems clear the church prefers, all church offices would be held by, pardon my bluntness, by men who have never had a sexual thought, have never masturbated, have never used contraceptives, have never had an orgasm, or indeed an erection. Of course, this would seem impossible, but is clearly a goal of the church.
Now to add to Jack's problem (and mine ,RCA) this group of men, ideally absent any sexual thought, desire, or experience are empowered to tell the one billion, (I believe) catholics how to conduct their sex lives. This idea must surely boggle the mind, but Jack thinks this is clearly the church's position,as I believe the church desires(RCA).
Abortion, that is the prohibition of such, is clearly the sine qua non of today's church at least in America. Jack thinks this attitude is clearly sex driven. In all the "elevated" catholic stance on this is the clear saying "Sex has consequences." Or another way;"Sex is only for procreation." But staying away from the right or wrong of the practice the philosophy is sex has a price. I notice in reviewing these sites something called the "unitive" principle is always invoked. This, of course, is a concession to reality, and is obviously based on the principle of teleology, that is definition by outcome. A child defines a brick, for example, as something you build a building with. This type of thinking is outdated by hundreds of years. A brick is not define by what it is used as but by its material elements. But to the catholic, sex is defined primarily as something that produces children, which is of course pitiful logic. So catholics must to nothing to twarth that possibility. Why? Because sex is defined by the producing of offspring. Again teleology of the ancient philosophers. I have noticed on a couple of blogs that NFP, I believe it is called, that the bloggers have clearly shown their is no basic difference between NFP and physical contraception; they are both efforts to destroy the "purpose" of sex. As RCA I should add how is a totally celibate clergy to understand the "unitive" principle in sexual relations?
Again let me say, Jack is not arguing the morality of abortion here; only that it is driven by a demeaning of sex.
Now, I am sure, if this is read that catholic scholars will resurrect the dry bones of "natural law" in defense of the church, defining wheat as something to be eaten.
In the two days I have been here it has been my good fortune to reruse Jack's considerable library. He has a large book entitled "Catholicism" by a teacher or former teacher at Notre Dame. Glancing through it I notice he was careful not to discuss any teaching clearly defined by the church. The other bood(s) was a three volume history of philosophy by the Jesuit Frederick Copleston of course with an imprimatur meaning, I assume, nothing can be suggested that is contrary to catholic doctrine. Jack likes the philosophy books so this last sentence was RCA. If Jack had stayed around we could have had some great discussions. Good Luck to any who might read this. If I get time I'll try to give Jack's problems with infallibility. RCA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RCA,
ReplyDeleteGreetings! Welcome to Jack's blog. :) It was very kind of you to frame Jack's thoughts for him.
Jack (and RCA and Alice and anyone else who wants to respond)...
I'm going to make a case for the Church's teachings. I warn you, this will be really really long. :)
There are so many things I can think of to say, that I don't know where to start. Is the Church obsessed with sex? Does it talk about it too much? Only in as much as humans in general think and talk about sex. Isn't it said that men think about sex every 8 minutes or so? How can something that engages so much of our thought not be something that the Church, too, talks about?
Let's deal with the “what is sex” question. You say that teleological definitions are outdated. I would argue that the Church addresses sex teleologically without necessarily saying that its definition is teleological. That is, even if you define “sex” by specific actions or relation of body parts, that will not affect the Church's teaching on the morality involved.
Let me use the brick analogy. A “brick” can be defined by its material parts, so that we call something a brick regardless of what purpose it is used for. But the Church tells us that it is morally good to use a brick to build a house and it is morally bad to use a brick to smash someone's head in. In the same way, the Church tells us that, however you define sex, there are ways to engage in it that are moral and other ways that are immoral. (Similarly, there are moral ways to eat food and immoral ways to eat food).
I don't know if it's helpful to *define* things teleologically, but modern understanding of the world has seriously suffered from not taking the nature and purpose of things into account. To quote Mr. Wright,
If the atheist is "more knowledgeable" his knowledge is greater only in physics, the material construction details of the material world, which tell you not the first thing about the nature of the gods, not even whether the world is a created artifact or the product of a natural order. The question is a philosophical one, and the philosophical questions have not changed. There has been no progress in this issue, only a change in fads and fashions. I highly recommend you read the whole article, for context.
I'm not calling you (any of you) an atheist, by the way. But it seems to me that you think that teleology is wrong because it is outdated. I think that teleology, and, specifically, the purpose of sex and what limits ought to be placed on it, is a philosophical issue and there is no good evidence for thinking the philosophy of the moderns is any better than the philosophy of the ancients.
Mr. Wright, by the way, is a science fiction author who happens to keep a blog online that I enjoy reading. I think you (Jack, and maybe RCA) would enjoy reading some of his Christian/philosophical writings, because he has an approach that has as much emphasis on reason and rationality as yours. Here and here are two of his postings that touch on the topic of sex. I think they will be well worth reading.
So now, what is the purpose of sex? Not what is the definition of sex, but what is the role of sex in human life? Why did God make us to want to engage in sex? How does it fit into his plan? Modern philosophy says that sex is for physical pleasure, no more and no less. Is there any basis for believing so? Not that I'm aware of. Not that the pleasure is bad. But is it the only thing, or is it meant to be the icing on the cake?
You think the Church abhors sex. I say that the Church – theologically speaking – glorifies sex. Let me present the case. First, start with the glory of man. (“Man” in the generic sense of human, not in the sense of male). Genesis tells us we are made in the image of God. To quote a couple authors, “wonderfully, fearfully made”, “statues of God walking about in a garden”. We are the summit, the pinnacle, the culmination of the step-by-step creation in Genesis 1, made with a glory greater than the most beautiful sunset or the most awe-inspiring painting you've ever seen.
Because human life is such a glorious thing, God did not give us dominion over it. He gave us dominion over the plants and animals and such, to use or not use according to our best judgement. But he does not give us the authority over our own lives. Accordingly, it is a sin to commit murder. We may not take even our own lives. And, in the same vein, we also do not have authority over the creation of human life. The fact that God allows us to participate in the act of creating a miniature image of Himself, to help create a being with an eternal soul capable of knowing and loving Him, is a fearsome thing.
And sex is *how* God designed us to participate in that act. Sex is how babies are made. The making of babies may not be the definition of sex, but it is definitely the purpose of sex. Another purpose of sex is the unitive purpose; to make two people into one.
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:31. Do you think this only applies to marriage and not to sex? Check out 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?”.
All of creation is an act of God's love. He loves something and it comes into being. Through sex, God means for us to do a similar thing on a much smaller scale. We become one with another, and out of that love a new life entirely is made. Anything we do that directly acts against the procreative or unitive aspects of sex is a violation of God's design. It's like an 8-year-old kid stealing the keys and driving the parents' car; it is his own well-being that he is acting against.
Rape, fornication, prostitution, adultery, porn, and polygamy all violate the unitive aspect of sex, because God's intent was for a couple to be joined for life. Rape, even if it were done within a marriage, is the opposite of unitive. Masturbation also violates the unitive aspect of marriage, since there is no “other” to be being joined with.
In vitro fertilization, contraception, masturbation, oral & anal ejaculation, and homosexual sex, all violate the procreative aspect of sex. They are a violation of God's design. Our fertility is a gift from God. To take action against it is basically a form of masochism, like cutting off a healthy leg because you want to compete in the Special Olympics. You might enjoy reading this, from which I quote “And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things.” Sexual sin is when a person gets treated as a thing.
Natural infertility, NFP, and ecological breastfeeding, on the other hand, do not violate God's design. In those cases, humans have not *made* themselves infertile. The infertility is from God; it is a part of the design that God built into our bodies.
Now, I know that some catholics (especially quite conservative ones) condemn the use of NFP to avoid children. And it is certainly possible to avoid having children for selfish reasons. But the Church clearly says that a married couple may legitimately use NFP to avoid having children, if they have a serious reason for doing so. Two quotes, the first from Humanae Vitae, the second from the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults:
”If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
“Contemporary methods of natural family planning are making it possible for couples, in cases of legitimate need, to space the births of their children while remaining faithful to God's plan for marriage.”
This shows that the Church's attitude (again, theologically speaking) towards sex is not to reluctantly allow people to have sex only so that the human race doesn't die out. Rather, the Church is strict about not saying it is ok for people to ignore or offend God's design for sex. But within that design, there is the possibility of trying to avoid having children, and, whether the sex results in children or not, there is a sacredness and potentially intense pleasure to sex which the Church counts as a great blessing.
Now, you say that you think that the Church says anathema to sexual thoughts. Here I would disagree with you. The Church speaks out against indulging in lustful thoughts. But lust is not the same thing as a desire for sex. Sexual desire is considered a “natural” desire, something that's more or less built into us. There's nothing wrong with appreciating a beautiful woman or man, nothing wrong with dwelling on the idea of having sex with your spouse. What's wrong is if you choose to let your thoughts go in directions that treat people as things. If you think of someone as a sex object – if you dwell on the thought of having sex with them while not giving any consideration at all to them as a person – then that is wrong. The Bible teaches us over and over that we have an obligation to restrain our desires, to exercise control over ourselves so that we only act on our desires in a way that is beneficial for everyone. This is true of all of our appetites: our desire for rest can turn into laziness, our desire for food can turn into gluttony, our desire to be attractive can turn into things like anorexia, our desire for alcohol can turn into drunkenness, etc. The Church warns us of where and how our desire for sex can become destructive; but as with the other appetites, it is not the case that there is something sinful about the desire itself.
Next let me talk about the clergy. First off, nuns and monks are not clergy; there is no female clergy in the Church. And chastity is not the same thing as celibacy. Every human is called to be chaste; “chaste” means that a person's sexual life is not sinful. “Celibacy” means not having sex or being unmarried. Now, theologically speaking, there is no reason the priesthood has to be celibate. There are married, presumed sexually-active, priests in the Church – in the Eastern rites and some formerly-Protestant pastors who converted and are allowed to become priests even if they are married. The practice of celibacy in the Church is a discipline, which means it is something the Church has decided to do for now. That could change anytime. And there is nothing wrong with Catholics thinking that the Church *ought* to change that practice right now.
Let me try to give you the idea of what it is supposed to mean for a priest or a monastic (nun or monk) to be celibate. Sex is pretty much the highest physical pleasure we can have. (Although I hear that, for women, chocolate sometimes exceeds it). Marriage (and the sex and children that go with it) is probably the highest “natural” good around. And when I say that, I mean that it is the one earthly thing that people long for more than anything else.
To give this up, for the sake of something greater, for love of God, for service to His people, is a high calling. The greater a person's love is, the more they are willing to sacrifice for love's sake. Jesus showed the ultimate love for us by sacrificing his very life, everything he had. Celibates give up something very special indeed in order to dedicate themselves to prayer, or to helping the poor, or to doing the work of a priest. Again, there is nothing about this that makes sex into something demeaning. Celibacy is special precisely because it gives up something wonderful, for the sake of God. If sex was demeaning, it would be only a minimum duty for everyone to give it up, not a special sacrifice that some make.
And, again, the ideal is not for priests to be men who have never had a sexual thought. If they've never had a sexual thought, then they aren't really giving up much. The ideal is for celibates to be men who recognize that sex and marriage are really good, but who also know that God is calling them to give up that good in order to serve the community.
Now let's get to abortion. The church's teaching on abortion is not driven by a demeaning of sex. Rather, it is more nearly the other way around. The Church says we must think of a fetus as a full human person, a “wonderfully and fearfully made” creature, one who has the divine spark in him. Because of this, we may not kill them for our own convenience. And it is precisely because of the value of the human life that is made through sex that sex itself becomes something sacred, something too special to do it in any way we feel like without regard for God's design.
I hope Jack is recovering well. God bless all three of you: Jack, RCA, and Alice.
Anna
My dear Anna, I appreciate your responding. You have done an excellent job stating the church's position on sex, which, of course, Jack, found difficult,of which Alice is critical, and which I find nonsense, nothing but an elaborate rationalization.This does not mean I am hostile, nor was Jack. I noticed in an earlier missive to Jack you had expressed a willingness to discuss issues relating to the church's position on "delicate" issues; so you are to be commended. I notice most other bloggers are reluctant to engage in any real exchange, so kudos to you . Not knowing the blog sphere and somewhat busy assisting Alice at this time, let me delay my response till later today, a response which I think it might be useful to posit in the form of questions,with your permission.You can obviously tell that biblical citation carry little weight with me. I am not an atheist, was brought up in a mildly devout Methodist family,but find catholic teaching very hard to follow. Please do not be offended by my earlier use of the word "nonsense". Probably the wrong word and most certainly not intended to apply to you. Be back later.Robert.
ReplyDeleteAnna, thank you. This conversation might seem to some 'awkward' but to us we admire your willingness to touch on these matters. Again I have only a few minutes so a few questions and I will be back if you have the time.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be quite sure that sex was primarily designed for procreation. But, of course, saying that does not make it so.On what basis other than your religious beliefs do you make this claim?
You mentioned that some priest are married. Based on your defense of a celibate priesthood,are celibate priest more 'effective' than married priest?
Do you not think that celibate priest would be somewhat lacking in advising married couples, never having experienced either sex as procreation or to fulfill the unitive principle?
Since sexual thoughts(you characterize them as "lustful") are deplored by the church what outlets would you suggest for an unmarried young man of 25, say?
If this 25 year old admires the beauty of a women to the point of erection how does the church view this?
Are you quite sure from your study of history that the church has always exalted sex other than as a means of procreation?
What is your explantion of the large number of homosexuals in the priesthood, and the disproportionate number of sex offenses against males as opposed to sexual abuse against males in the general population?
If the priest is making a great religious sacrifice to be celibate but this 'sacrifice'would later turn to sex abuse of a boy would the sex abuse be mitigated as church practices would seem to indicate.(coverups, John Paul 2 rather tepid interest in the issue, transfers of known abusers to other assignment, the promotion of Cardinal Cushing etc). My main interest is the first part of the question.
Jack would love to be in on this discussion. Your williness to enter the discussion is a tribute to you. Robert
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI love discussing these kinds of things – almost anything related to religion and especially Catholicism. I'm a little surprised that you haven't found other people happy to discuss them.
You should feel free to take as much time as you want to respond. I'm a mother of three little ones, so my own Internet time is somewhat irregular; some days I have lots of time, some days none at all. If I'm especially busy, it might take me a whole week to respond, but I generally do get around to it eventually. So you, too, should feel free to take as much time as you like and not worry about me being impatient.
I hope that Jack is able to participate in this discussion, whenever he feels up to it. I pray for him, when I remember.
I'm not too easily offended, certainly not by your use of the word “nonsense”.
You say biblical citation carries little weight with you. Why is this? What is your overall take on the Bible?
Now to your questions.
You seem to be quite sure that sex was primarily designed for procreation. But, of course, saying that does not make it so. On what basis other than your religious beliefs do you make this claim?
If I wiped out every single one of my religious beliefs, including my belief in God, then I suppose I would have no basis. If I did not believe that there was a God, then I would be a materialist, thinking there is no spiritual world, and that things exist the way they do without any purpose whatsoever. Because in order for something to be designed for something, there has to be a Designer.
However, once I accept that there is a Designer and that he has a design for us, even if I don't believe in Catholicism or the Bible, it immediately seems obvious to me that the main purpose of sex is to make babies. For thousands and thousands of years, for countless generations of human beings, sex has always been the way babies are made. To paraphrase the Mr. Wright that I quoted in my earlier comment, sex and babies are not a one-to-one relationship, but they are a cause-and-effect relationship. Babies are caused by sex. Even now, after the invention of IVF, if a woman gets pregnant and idly comments about not really expecting it, or something, people leap up to say something like, “funny how we know what causes that, now”. (I think I've had people tell me that with every one of my pregnancies). If you only believe that there is a God who designed human beings with a purpose and not randomly, then such a cause-and-effect relationship can only be an intentional design. To question whether begetting is the primary purpose of sex is like questioning whether nourishment and growth is the primary purpose of eating food. I don't think most previous generations even thought to ask that question, it was so obvious to them. Modern science has allowed people to separate sex from procreation, and so the question does not seem as obvious anymore. But to me this is like if modern science reaches the point where we can eat food without that food nourishing us in any way. The fact that it becomes possible to do so does not change the fact that the primary purpose of eating is for nourishment. In the same way, the fact that it is possible to have sex without getting pregnant does not change the fact that the primary purpose of sex is for begetting the next generation.
You mentioned that some priest are married. Based on your defense of a celibate priesthood,are celibate priest more 'effective' than married priest?
I should be more clear. I am definitely against mandatory celibacy for priests. I believe the Church has the right to make its rules according to its best judgments, and I believe Catholics have an obligation to follow those rules. This particular rule is not doctrinal, it is disciplinary. I have no obligation to agree with the wisdom of this rule, and I don't.
On the other hand, I respect the Church's reasoning. Celibate priests are more practical: you don't have to pay them enough to support a wife and 1 or 9 kids; they don't have to split their time between the parish and their family. There are rather large practical obstacles to converting from a celibate-only priesthood to a married priesthood. However, I think these obstacles could be worked out (for example, by requiring married priests to have a day job to support their families, and having them be auxiliaries to parishes rather than the only priest at a parish).
My defense that I offered before was primarily a defense of celibacy in general, rather than of a celibate-only priesthood. I do think there is a value to celibacy, that that is a noble path that God calls some people to. And if the Church thinks that it is better for all priests to follow that path, I respect that they are honoring the vocation of celibacy, even while I disagree that it should be a requirement for being a priest.
Do you not think that celibate priest would be somewhat lacking in advising married couples, never having experienced either sex as procreation or to fulfill the unitive principle?
Quite frankly, I think this is hogwash. (No disrespect intended). You don't have to be a drug addict to know that using drugs is harmful. I never drink alcohol, because I don't like the taste. But that doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between someone drinking in a harmless way and someone drinking in a harmful way. I was reading a book today where the male author had an insight into the deepest heart of women, yet he's never been one. I've had at least one priest in the confessional say something about my married life that did actually help me. It's just not true that you have to have experienced something in order to be able to help with it. Experiencing something yourself does make your advice have more force with the listener. But experience doesn't equate with wisdom. If a priest is wise, he will be able to give good advice, even where he has not experienced something personally. If a married priest is not wise, his advice will be useless, even if he has the experience of being married.
Since sexual thoughts(you characterize them as "lustful") are deplored by the church what outlets would you suggest for an unmarried young man of 25, say?
To be clear again, there is a difference between sexual desire and lust. Sexual desire is natural, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it (even for an unmarried man). Lust is disordered sexual desire: desire gone bad. As for how to deal with lustful temptations, I hear exercise helps, cold showers if necessary. Mostly, though, I recommend distraction and prayer. Pray for the grace to be chaste, to respect women as whole people and not just sexy bodies, pray for God to provide him with a wife (assuming he wants one), and maybe add on a formula prayer like a Hail Mary or the Rosary. (It seems somehow fitting to me that a man struggling to resist sexual temptation would ask for help from a holy woman, a virgin, one who it is a bit more difficult to think of in a sexual context). Then I would recommend he try to find something else to think about, to get on with whatever it is he ought to be doing right then. (If it's leisure time, maybe read a book or watch a good movie).
If this 25 year old admires the beauty of a women to the point of erection how does the church view this?
It's not a sin to get an erection. What matters is what the man is thinking in his heart. Does he have an erection because he decided to fantasize about having sex with some girl he doesn't even know but saw passing on the street? If so, then he is treating her as an object in his heart, and that is a sin. Does he have an erection because some woman in front of him is flashing cleavage at him and he couldn't help but notice? Then he is tempted to sin, but if he resists the urge to think about her only as sex potential, then he has resisted sin. Does he have an erection because he is kissing his beautiful fiance? Then he has an obligation to resist the urge to sleep with her, out of respect for her. But as long as he is doing that, and not objectifying her somehow in his heart, then there is no sin that I can see. (And it would seem awfully unhealthy to me for a man never to be sexually attracted to a woman he loves).
If a man holds himself back from seeking to have sex with someone outside of marriage only because of fear of rejection, because of inconvenience, or for fear of getting caught, then that is a sign that he is committing sin in his heart. If, on the other hand, he holds himself back out of respect for the other person, out of duty (because he knows it's wrong), or out of love, then it's a good guess that he's not committing sin in his heart.
Are you quite sure from your study of history that the church has always exalted sex other than as a means of procreation?
Not at all. As far as I know, the explicit idea of there being a unitive purpose to sex is relatively recent. I don't think this means the Church has reversed its position. I think it is just because our age is the first to really ask the question about the purpose of sex; the first to present such a challenge that the Church was required to clarify things. Of course, I think that the idea of there being a unitive purpose to sex was sort of built into the Church's teachings against fornication and adultery, built into the Scriptural references of “man and woman made into one flesh” and all that. But nothing before ever came up that required the Church to make that teaching explicit.
What is your explantion of the large number of homosexuals in the priesthood, and the disproportionate number of sex offenses against males as opposed to sexual abuse against males in the general population?
I haven't the foggiest notion how many homosexuals there really are in the priesthood. I hear all sorts of speculations and estimates, but when people can't even agree on just how flaming someone has to be before they are considered “homosexual”, I haven't found anything I consider particularly reliable. (And I'm not terribly inclined to care).
If there are a large number of homosexuals in the priesthood, I think that would be fairly natural. If a Catholic finds themselves to be homosexual, they can either (A) reject Catholicism (B) stay Catholic but reject its rejection of homosexual acts (C) try to change their inclination or (D) embrace celibacy. Many go the route of A or B. I know some group tries to help people do C, but I guess it's pretty controversial and most people wouldn't even try it. But some gays are going to want to be faithful to Church teaching, which means they are going to expect to not have sex. For these, priesthood is a pretty natural choice. If you can't have the satisfaction of getting married, you might as well dedicate yourself to something that offers meaning and purpose in the form of priestly service, right?
As for sex abuse, I'm not really sure. Priests have more ready access to boys than to girls – this was especially true when girl altar servers weren't around. People tend to trust a priest around young boys in a way that they might be somewhat less likely to trust them around young girls, so there are probably more opportunities to rape boys than there are to rape girls. Or maybe 70% of priests are primarily homosexual anyhow. I don't know. I'm not entirely sure it matters. I don't think homosexuality was really a serious contributing factor to the sex abuse crisis. Immature sexuality (not being prepared to control oneself and avoid temptations) probably was, and clericalism made it so much worse.
If the priest is making a great religious sacrifice to be celibate but this 'sacrifice'would later turn to sex abuse of a boy would the sex abuse be mitigated as church practices would seem to indicate.(coverups, John Paul 2 rather tepid interest in the issue, transfers of known abusers to other assignment, the promotion of Cardinal Cushing etc). My main interest is the first part of the question.
Very much no. If a man makes a commitment, a vow even, to forsake the wonders of sex and marriage, in order to live a life more completely dedicated to God – if he then turns around and rapes and sodomizes an innocent child whose spiritual well-being and care are his direct responsibility – there is nothing, nothing mitigating about that. If anything, his crime is worse than the already dreadful sin of non-priestly abuse, because he is also breaking his vow of celibacy and because he is violating, in the most terrible way, his responsibility – his duty – and his vow to care for the souls in his charge.
As for how the Church has dealt with this, I try to comfort myself by remembering that it is not a doctrinal issue, and so the Church can err. It's not much of a comfort sometimes. Although I will say that I don't know who Cardinal Cushing is.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, before I respond directly to your points, let me say a word or two about Jack's disappointment with "the other blogger" I think he calls him. Yes, I agree with you and the other gentleman that Jack was being a bit too sensitive. On the other hand , it seems to me that Jack's feelings have some justification. When we were young Jack, to my chagrin, was very attractive to girls and women. I suspect he confided some thing involved with this to the other blogger. Jack is very sensitive to others and this secret(s) is/are not known to Alice. Now I have never seen Jack cry in his life. but that he chose this person to reveal some private matters, touched Jack so deeply that he cried, which Alice saw.
ReplyDeleteThe other blogger did address Jack and said "no more secrets". Certainly this could be taken as a reprimand. So could 'let's all be above board'. The last comment of the other blogger 'I will discuss this no further' did seem to me a bit abrupt. And the comment about the corrosive consequences of secrets also seemed a bit strong. Okay, Jack over reacted but I do see his point in part.
Back to our discussion.Your point about the designer. The almost total agreement that evolution best explains our physical (including sex and child birth} rather than a specific design for every thing or event is accepted by catholic scientist just as much as by protestants, Well, even more. I know of no catholicuniversity in America[ or the world for that matter} that explains child birth by"Intelligent design." Of 480,ooo sicentist and those knowledgable in this dispute, 479,000 believe the best explanation of natural penomenon is evolution, while 700 sided with "intelligent design." Even the last two popes have stated that evolution is probably our best explanation of how nature works. One of the glories of the Church, as Jack so strongly argues, is its good relationship with science and its rejection of fundamentalist mainly defenders of ID, again a theory which has no standing among almost al thinkers in this area.
Of course, sexual relation may lead to procreation. But only about 20 percent of unimpeded sexual relations in a month would lead to pregnancy. Certainly a far greater percent would result in pleasure. So would it be fair to say the primary goal of sex is pleasure?
Anna, how many books on ' the joy of sex' been writtten by those who do not or never have experrence sexual intercourse? Yesterday, Alice and I stopped by a large Barnes and Noble store and checked out the approximately 25 books on child rearing. We could not find one written by a person with no children. At Alice's church I notice a class being offered on NPP, taught of course by a married couple. Another class on dealing with teenage children was taught by a married couple. The only class taught by a priest was one on how to recover from the "shame" of abortion.
Certainly your suggestion that young people with sex thoughts 'take a cold shower' or 'read a book' shows a 'light' touch.
I think you might agree that Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose are generally recognized as the three greats of early christian theology. And certainly you are aware they all vehemently condemned sex for any purpose other than procreation.
Of course the church's position has been modified and another blogger quoted from some 1930's I believe church doctrine on sex. With a slight bow to 'mutual love' the main point seem to be that the 'unitive' principle (that word was not used) along with the avoidance of lust was still in a distance second to procreation and should only be used as the lesser of two evils.
What is the church's position on sex that does not have the unitive principle (wife does not desire relations)but leads to pregnancy. Is such a situation deplored?
You say all creation is an act of God's love. Polio, down's syndrome, terribly deformed children etc. Did God bring these into creation?
You say sex is how babies are made. So? Is
it not more often used for pleasure ( repeat of above) and since in almost 100 percent of the cases it ends male pumescence could that not be a person of sex with your train of reasoning?
Sorry for above botch. Do you deny that the church considers virginity a greater good than sexual relationship? Did not John Paul 2 clearly imply this in placing nuns above married women?
With the sex scandals in the church do you deny that some priest do so as cover for not being married?
You say that priest have given up sex to serve god. Does that mean that priest are( and must be under your definition)morally superior to their flock? A rather disapointing thought for the married man, and possibly, I say only possibly, one of the causes of sex abuse among clergy.
Just a touch on abortion. Two questions Jack has ask before. Should a 12 year raped by her father , despite her objections, be forced by her catholic parents to go to term?
Assume 75 per cent of a panel of 100 doctors surmises after careful analysis that to go to term will lead to the death of mother and child. We are in the 3rd week of pregnancy. Do you agree with the church that an abortion is sinful in this case?
On a lighter note, if fetus are declared by law on persons should they be counted in the sentence?
If a women has no pressure to, but has an abortion should she be tried for murder?
If a women overexercises while prenant and loses the fetus should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter?
Back later. I admire you despite, what I think are your reasoning errors as I'm sure you think Jack and I are paragons of irrationality. Robert for Jack and a little of myself?
Anna, Alice ays in blogdom you can correct yourself. Where I said "person to sex" I meant reason for sex.
ReplyDeleteI'm cheating but your part about the homosexual saying 'hey I can't have sex with a women so I'll become a priest'(not exact quote) puzzles me. Is that church teaching? Robert
Robert here.I hope you have not been offended by comments on this blog. "We" received a rather hateful e-mail last evening from "Mike". Jack and Alice did not know their e-mail address was available to anyone. "We" have been most open. Jack and Alice city is known to many; he has even revealed his specific church. Everything on this blog is an effort to reflect Jack's view. Please let "us" know if you have been offended.I must say, and this is Robert, that I am surprised that so few are willing to discuss issues and that efforts are made to intimidate any one who does not basically agree with the blogger's views.But let me know. Robert
ReplyDeleteThis is Robert. I am in the room with Jack and I am trying to follow as closely as possible what he wants me to write.
ReplyDeleteAs you may know, Jack is a great believer in citing the 'sages' of the past and present because of his belief that almost always what you think is a brilliant insight has been said before, usually by a person far wiser than you.
Three quotes then that are germain to what follows. Not exact, but close enough to make the point. "The story goes that Knox woke up one day, flipped a coin, and thought heads I become an atheist and tails, a Catholic." Santayana said "We no more change our religion than our language." Dr. Johnson stated"There is hardly enough difference between the christian churches to occupy us for an hour."
Now the blogs. Every comma, every phrase, every possible nuance of pratically everything said or written about religion for thousands of years, becomes of the greatest importance on which a lifetime with
god or eternal burning of your flesh forever is dependent on rightly interpreting every nuance of every one of the millions of words on religion; or so it seems to some bloggers.
Music, of course, is not religion,although many a sage from Newman to Bertrand Russell and before have pointed out some similarities.I, myself and Jack, have engaged in spirited discussions over which is Beethoven's 'greatest' piano concerto, 4 or 5. Who 'wins' this discussion shows almost nothing when the last roll is called, although Jack believes very strongly in "standards" in virtually every area. So one of us is right and one is wrong.
Let's jump to religion.Yes, there are very important difference. Who is Jesus? Actually God in human form? A man who embodies the divine? The closest we will ever come to God? The supreme representative of God on Earth? Yes, important differences. But will nuanced differences between these views if held sincerely determine one man to an eternity of the most cruel tortune possible and another to eternal bliss? Even the church would say no to this question.
Jack was going to expound his views on infallibility. He believes the Roman Church is the highest authority in Christendom. He believes the church's defense of the doctrine of the incarnation is the greatest achievement in the history of christianity. His difference then is that the Church teaches that it is INPOSSIBLE for a pope, when speaking ex cathedra, to make an error. Do catholics believe this. I saw a survey which showed about 1/3 of catholics believe this, about 1/3 don't believe and 1/3 don't really have an opinion. Jack believes that a reasonable person could make up a scenario where a pope could make an error, ex cathedra. But in his years of interacting with catholics, this subject has never been brought up. The supremacy of the church, yes. But whether it is theorectically possible for an error to be made,ex cathedra, has never been discussed.
Back to the blogs. Is it really of eternal consequences whether god is call pater or father? Is it of saving importance as to how many feet a women can get to the altar during mass. Jack is a strong believer in Vatican 2. The traditionalist imply, at least, it was a fraud. Important yes, I guess. Real grist for the blog mill, but does eternal, eternal salvation depend on this issue as the traditionalist seem to suggest.
The value of blogs as Jack sees it.On a personal level Jack's 'confession' to Jeff, very important to Jack. Liam's advice to the young men. Priceless.Both almost 'holy' On another level blogdom is where those whose great interest is religion can respectfully discuss their OPINIONS. Only God will determine whose body is barned forever. Jack does not believe this judgment has been granted to bloggers, although he loves their OPINIONS. Robert
Hey, haven't had time to read this yet. Just reasuring you all that you are not blocked from my blog. I just turned on comment moderation as the traddies have gotten boring. Very few substantive arguments just 'I'm not a schismatic, you're just a heretic' over and over again with no enjoyable logic.
ReplyDeleteSo it might seem that your comment is taking a long time. That's because I'm working and haven't had a chance to publish the comments yet.
BTW - so far it is working. I have caught several very boring comments.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteNope, I haven't been offended.
Jack and Alice's email address is displayed in their profile. Let me show you how to remove it. Go to your profile here. If you are signed in, there should be a “button” towards the top left that says “edit your profile”. Click on that. Under “Privacy”, there are four options. The third one says, “Show my email address”. Click on the check mark to remove it. Then go to the bottom of the page and click on “Save profile”. That way no one who does not already have their email address will be able to find it. I'm sorry to hear that they have been receiving hateful emails. I don't know why someone would do that.
I think I know what Jack told the other blogger. The other blogger said that was not the kind of secret he meant, when he objected to keeping secrets (and he doesn't like not being believed, apparently). I think he was referring to the secrets kept during the sex abuse scandal; the only secrecy that I think he was relating to Jack was the fact that Jack happened to still be posting anonymously, even though there was no particular need for it anymore. All the same, I can see how it would be something Jack would be sensitive about.
Now to the discussion. I think you confuse the philosophy of evolution with the science of evolution. Catholicism has no objection to the science of evolution, to the idea that evolution explains the physical processes by which we came to be what we are. To a Catholic, the physical processes by which God chose to bring about his design are irrelevant to the faith. The point is that God DID design us. It may not be built into the nature of evolution that we turned out the way we did – in that sense our existence is “random” or “accidental”. But metaphysically/religiously/realistically speaking, our existence is not accidental. God intended us. And he intended us to be a certain way.
Mind you, I'm not really trying to argue for “intelligent design” as I understand it. I.D. is a scientific proposal that says that the natural processes themselves, by which we came into being, show or prove that there was a designer. I don't know of any really convincing argument to support that, and it certainly isn't important to the faith. God may have designed us through natural processes without ever using supernatural means to change the outcome. (Aside from generally keeping us in existence through his mere will-power and love for us). But all of those natural processes are themselves the way he made them. Whether the means were natural or supernatural, the point is that He did design us.
True that sex results in pleasure more often than it results in procreation. I've always thought of pleasure as the incentive to have sex, not the purpose. The pleasure we derive from eating is not the metaphysical purpose of eating. Picture God as Pavlov... if we eat or have sex (things necessary to keep us going), then we get a jolt of pleasure. This trains us to keep doing it. People who can't feel any pleasure at all would waste away, die off. (Aside from the pleasure, the incentive to have sex is pretty dang low). But the pleasure isn't the purpose of the eating or the having sex; the purpose of eating is to nourish us and the purpose of having sex is to beget children.
However, being fallen human beings, our pain/pleasure response is often messed-up, disordered, so that we can feel pleasure at doing things that are bad for ourself, or pain at doing something good for us. Thus all the stuff in the Bible about restraining our passion, and directing it towards the good.
On priestly celibacy:
A celibate priest is not the person to go to for ideas on how to achieve the best orgasm, I would agree. But does a marriage counselor have to be married to be an effective counselor? Does a psychologist have to have a mental disorder in order to tell someone how to deal with one? The main purpose of going to a priest for counseling is to receive spiritual advice. And a wise priest can give that without having experienced marriage.
When one looks at the courses offered at Alice's church, one *might* say that the one the priest was teaching was the one he considered the most important. Since it is the only one you listed that involved healing, I'd say maybe that's a good thing. Mostly, though, I would say that it is the only of the classes which was not about techniques, but about something ultimately spiritual. And therefore it was the one that ought to be within a priest's competency. (Which is not to say that every priest could actually handle it well).
You say the cold-shower suggestion shows a 'light touch'. I'm not sure what you mean by that... is it a bad thing? Theologically, I would say that an unmarried man has a duty to resist lustful thoughts. He does not have a duty to resist every sexual desire whatsoever.
Even saints are wrong about things. Saints don't have infallibility, even the great doctors. Their writings heavily influence how Catholic teaching is presented, what makes it into homilies, etc. But their writings aren't doctrine. Attitudes in the Church towards sex have certainly changed over the centuries. Doctrines have never reversed themselves.
What is the church's position on sex that does not have the unitive principle (wife does not desire relations)but leads to pregnancy. Is such a situation deplored?
Do you mean what if a man forces himself on an unwilling wife? That is rape, and is definitely deplored. If the wife merely isn't in the mood, or would prefer not to, but chooses to go along with it anyways, then she is willing, and the unitive principle is not offended.
You say all creation is an act of God's love. Polio, down's syndrome, terribly deformed children etc. Did God bring these into creation?
No. God created everything good. Satan and his demons warped things that were good to bring about defects, sicknesses, etc.
Do you deny that the church considers virginity a greater good than sexual relationship? Did not John Paul 2 clearly imply this in placing nuns above married women?
I do not deny that the Church considers virginity to be an objectively higher state than marriage, although I'm not aware of JP2 explicitly placing nuns above married women. Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' “The Four Loves”? He makes an excellent distinction between what he calls nearness of likeness and nearness of approach. The analogy he uses to describe this is of a person walking along a path to get to a village. There is a bend in the path which looks down a cliff at the village; when a person is there, the village is very close, but inaccessible. To approach nearer the village – to be closer to obtaining their goal – the person must leave that bend in the path. When they do so, they become farther away from the village in space, but nearer the village in terms of approach.
This is much the case with virginity and marriage. Virginity is “nearness of likeness” to God; it is a path which offers a closer resemblance to the Divine. But it doesn't accomplish union to the Divine. “Nearness of approach” is a matter of holiness within one's own vocation, whatever that vocation be. A sexually active married person may well be closer to God in terms of “nearness of approach” - that is, they may be holier – than a virgin.
Instinctively, this makes a certain amount of sense to me. The martyrs are held in the highest esteem because they sacrificed the greatest thing they had – their lives – to God. Someone who deliberately gives up one of the greatest goods on earth (sex and marriage) out of love for God has the potential to achieve greater heights of love than someone who does not. But whether they actually reach that potential is left up to them, and they are as likely to fail to reach their full potential as a married person is likely to fail to reach their own full potential.
Incidentally, this is something that I often struggle with, since I hate to be told I can't be the greatest. But I'm coming to accept that one part of humility is accepting that sometimes God's plan for you isn't always the plan you would have chosen for yourself.
With the sex scandals in the church do you deny that some priest do so as cover for not being married?
What do you mean by “cover”? Do you mean, do I think that the abusive priests would not have abused if they had been married? I doubt that would have helped much. Abuse is a serious problem among teachers, too, and teachers are allowed to marry. I suppose I'm under the impression that the problem is not so much whether one has a wife to have sex with, but rather whether one is attracted to pre-pubescent or barely-pubescent children (and one's overall ability to restrain one's desires). Wives don't satisfy urges to have sex with immature kids so well. (If a man is attracted to mature women, he is more likely to have an affair with a willing woman, or perhaps to use a prostitute, than to abuse a child, I would think).
You say that priest have given up sex to serve god. Does that mean that priest are( and must be under your definition)morally superior to their flock? A rather disapointing thought for the married man, and possibly, I say only possibly, one of the causes of sex abuse among clergy.
Well, I already touched on some of this I think. A priest *ought* to be chosen for his general ability to lead a flock well, which means he needs to be wise and upright, among other things. But I guess I don't think very much of prevailing attitudes towards 'discernment' when it comes to vocations, including the vocation of priesthood. But serving God isn't the motivation of all men who become priests, and giving up sex doesn't actually make anyone morally superior.
And I would highly agree that clericalism – thinking that priests are holier than their flock and somehow untouchable – is a serious contributor to why sex abuse went on so long.
Just a touch on abortion. Two questions Jack has ask before. Should a 12 year raped by her father , despite her objections, be forced by her catholic parents to go to term?
Yes. I know Jack thinks that is cruel, but a human life is a human life. You can't kill a person because their father is an evil pervert and their mother is young. However, I would say that the girl's mother ought to remove her from her father's presence. And if the mother will not do this, the community, the state, should do it for her, and place her with someone who is willing to look after her. The 12 year old is also best put the child up for adoption rather than try to take care of it herself before she is ready.
Assume 75 per cent of a panel of 100 doctors surmises after careful analysis that to go to term will lead to the death of mother and child. We are in the 3rd week of pregnancy. Do you agree with the church that an abortion is sinful in this case?
For myself, I'm not sure. Technically, I don't know that the Church has doctrinally defined this case. The Church says you may not directly kill an innocent. However, I have heard the argument (from Joe, whose blog Jack reads sometimes) that a baby whose presence is leading to the mother's death is an “unjust aggressor”, that the baby is attacking the mother, even if it doesn't realize it. On this grounds, killing the child is self-defense. I haven't yet heard an argument that has convinced me that this could not be the case, although I know it goes against prevailing Catholic opinion. There may also be the possibility of simply removing the child; this will result in the child's death, but that death is not direct. The direct action is to remove the child from the vicinity of the mother, in order to save the mother's life. Double effect would then apply.
On a lighter note, if fetus are declared by law on persons should they be counted in the sentence?
Should the fetus be counted in what sentence? Yes I think they should be declared legally persons. And yes I think that should generally be taken into account when sentences are given.
If a women has no pressure to, but has an abortion should she be tried for murder?
Yes.
If a women overexercises while prenant and loses the fetus should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter?
I would say no. In order to try someone for involuntary manslaughter, I think you would have to prove that it was (or should have been) obvious to the woman that what she was doing had a quite high likelihood in resulting in the death of the fetus, and yet she chose to do it anyways. Doctors warn of many things which might slightly increase the chance of miscarriage, but people who counsel women who have had miscarriages know that it is pointless to blame yourself for them, because the women so rarely, if ever, actually contributes significantly to it happening; certainly it is never “obvious” enough that something will result in a miscarriage to try someone for involuntary manslaughter.
I'm cheating but your part about the homosexual saying 'hey I can't have sex with a women so I'll become a priest'(not exact quote) puzzles me. Is that church teaching?
How is that cheating? No, that's not Church teaching. That's just me trying to explain why I think homosexuals would be attracted to the priesthood, and therefore why it would not surprise me if a larger percentage of priests are homosexual than is the case in the general population.
About the quotes: I think there's a pretty big difference between atheism and Catholicism. And I think it's possible to change both our religion and our language, so I'm not sure what Jack means there. And, while I would argue technically with Dr. Johnson's statement, in that I can spend quite a bit more than an hour talking about the differences between the Christian churches, I agree with his real point (or what I think is his real point) that the differences between them are small compared to the similarities.
I'm with Jack on the idea that some (possibly most) blogs write as if salvation depended on getting every belief exactly right, and that they are wrong to do this. It isn't Church teaching. I don't know of any blogs discussing whether God is called Pater or Father, unless you mean whether the Mass should be in Latin. Anyone that implies that Vatican II is a fraud rather than a legitimate council is flat-out wrong. And I agree that no blogger has the right to say that another is going to hell; we are not equipped to judge people's souls on that level. (Although I might say that we discuss more than mere opinion; we discuss truths, about which people can be wrong or right).
Do Catholics believe the Church's teaching on papal infallibility? I haven't the slightest idea, really, other than I know that I do and I have met others who do.
Jack believes that a reasonable person could make up a scenario where a pope could make an error, ex cathedra.
It's easy to make up a scenario. Tomorrow the pope could die. Maybe most of the cardinals somehow die, too. The remaining cardinals pick to be pope someone who they think is orthodox, but who really is a wild card. He promptly declares ex cathedra that the Incarnation is false.
The problem isn't whether or not you can come up with a scenario that describes a violation of papal infallibility. The problem is whether you believe that God is going to prevent such a scenario from actually happening. In one sense, it is theoretically possible for an error to be made ex cathedra, if by “theoretically possible” you mean “can someone imagine such a thing happening”. In another sense, it is not theoretically possible, (according to me and the Church), because the deeper reality is that God has promised he will never let it happen.
Anna, this is Robert, but because of possible confusion I'm going to be Jack.
ReplyDeleteNow on each comment your mode becomes tighter, your logic more consistent,your arguments more convincing. We still disagree, but my admiration for your analysis grows. Your willing to enter this discussion is impressive. As an older person may I be pompous for Just a few words. From a review of my first book." I remember meeting John for the first time in the late 70's when he was chief negotiator for the teachers' union and I represented the administrative team. The passion with which he represented the teachers was always evident, but the most revealing characteristic of his arguments was the infuriating logic that made his positions almost impossible to refute in any convincing way." Dr. Jerry Roger.
I say this in pride, yes, but also in tribute that you have no problem enterring the lists. You cited another writer earlier and I read him. Long winded bu vacuous in my opinion. Not worthy of carrying your crocs. Mortimer Adler the great american philosopher used to make his students write out the theme of a book in one sentence. So Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is an elaborate argument for synthetic jugments a priori are possible. Of course we need to know how he got there, but even more important is where he got.
Now back to our discussion. Your analysis of "purpose" still eludes me a bit. You say sex was meant by God for procreation;couldn't I just as easily could say God created sex for pleasure. Why not just drop the teleology and say 'often when people have sexual intercourse a fetus is created so where do we go from there. What does quibling over the 'purpose' add to where do we go from here?
Anna I believe your comment on priestly celibacy is not logical. Yes, I believe a marriage counselor would in almost all cases need to be married to give advice to the married.A person with a disastrous marriage in most cases would not be my choice of a marriage counselor.So of course I would not want my paychologist to certify he was mentally ill to treat my mental illness, but I might want him to certify he had lived a mental illness free life before I would take his advice. So I think it best a priest have experience in marriage before he gave too much marriage advice.
The 'cold shower' I described as 'light' because, you're too young to remember, years ago that was a kind of popular joke about someone telling a young man burning with passion to "go take a cold shower". It was a kind of joke, and I don't believe many counselors would use that today.
You lost me again on the unitive principle. Man wants sex. Women definitely does not and finds it most upleasant, but gives in to husband while hating that particular act. How is that unitive? It takes two to dance and in this case would it not be disunitive?
On the homosexual issue as cover. I think almost everyone agrees some men become priest to disguise their homosexuality. Nothing wrong with homosexual priest, BUT to become one to hide your homosexuaity does not seem right to me or almost all church leaders.
On the abortion issue I should have said counted in the "census" not sentence. After all they're a person.
Anna, I do not believe you want our courts jammed with abortion trials. Murder, second degree murder, different kinds of manslaughter.At least you do not take "the woman has no responsibility, only the doctor. Bad,Bad reasoning, upsetting our entire common law system.
On the girl raped by her father I believe you are cruel. I know you are not, so judge, disregard her answer.
If a fertalized egg is the same as a person why do pro-life people thrill in showing sonograms of how a fetus looks at so many weeks? What difference does it make?
Now just a personal experience. I've mentioned my 36 year old son died 3 years ago.He was in an irreversible coma,according to doctors would never see, never speak, would never recover. This was not John, our son.Yes the body breathed with life support machines . We had them turned off. The point here is that these cells were not John. A few months later Meg our daughter had a miscarriage at 3 weeks. I believe. But that blood and tissue was not her child. You have seen his picture. Joe is her son.
Let me come back a little later on infallibility..Jack
Anna, as you get older you will find things that are hard to talk about. You kind of lose your composure. But i'm back.
ReplyDeleteI told a fib. I said infallibility was keeping me from Catholocism. That's not so. I stand very strongly by my belief that the church is obssesed with sex. But on infallibility---well so what. Every church thinks they're "right". And so do the catholics. I'm not putting it down, but when you said on another blog something to the effect we have infallibility I know you did not mean on all important issues of faith and morals we're right.
So just a couple of thoughts. You remember once we discussed Russell's Theory of Types, that is how do you understand the statement"Plato, who is a greek, says all greeks are liars." Well i see kind of the same problem in the declaration of infallibility. Sorta like, " We catholics whose church is infallible, say our church is infallible. Proof: We have said we are infallible and that has to be true because we are infallible."
I believe the church sees some problem with that. With all this God-given power and all the faith and marals issues that swirl around us in 150 years we've had the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary. Despite Pius' frightening anatama, I just don't believe at the last judgment hell or heaven is going to be decided on this when the great majority of catholics don't understand the immaculate conception and believe Mary is with God but aren't sure how she got there.
And then the method. The church: we declare this doctrine has always been held by the faithful, but we need to declare it because many don't believe it. Hmm?Incidentall I believe John23 said "I don't issue infallible statements."
You mentioned Jeff earlier. Robert and you have convinced me that the situation was not as bad as I thought.I still think the juxaposition was unfortunate. I made a timid advance to Jeff, but apparently he is standing firm. 'I said no more discussion and that's final.' Apparently no more 'diplomatic' recognition. Jack
Anna.
ReplyDeleteThis is Robert C.A. Jack and Alice have graciously allowed me to ask this question. It is not a "trick" question, but since others among Catholic blogs seem so testy and you don't seem to be, both Jack and Alice suggest I send it your way.
Jack and Alice are always going in churches when we travel together on ocassion.Even though Jack is not Catholic he took me to Alice's church when I was in town last spring. Very impressive. The building I'm talking about.
At the front of the church were a large number of candles. I understand Alice and the Grand children always light one of these when they are at church. Apparently for Jack and Alice's deceased son. Now I love Alice and the kids, but this practice kind of irritates me. To me it seems a bit "pagan". My question then is what is the pupose of this? Who is it to help? Their deceased son, Alice and the kids, the church. How does it help? Robert, with the permission of Jack and Alice.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAlice or Robert mentioned on Jeff's blog that you thought you had scared me off. Try reading through all the discussion here, to get an idea of how hard it is to scare me off. I'm busy, though, so it takes me a long time to respond. I'm seriously considering giving up most or all of my blogging, in order to have more time for my kids and to keep up with the cleaning and various other things that I should be doing. If I stop talking to you because of that, I expect I'll warn you first. Otherwise, just assume I'm busy and will get around to giving you an answer when I have the chance.
I'm glad you find my logic getting more consistent.
When you said you read an author I cited earlier, did you mean John Eldredge's Waking the Dead book? He does kind of go on and on about some of it, but I found when I tested his arguments, they held up well (but only if you accept a rather stronger understanding of Biblical inspiration than I think you have).
If you drop the teleology out of the sex question, and say “often a fetus is created”, then you take God out of the picture. If you think that the morality of what is acceptable and not acceptable sexually depends only on a human evaluation of the circumstances involved, then there is no way for God to have any say in telling us what is right and wrong, except through the principles that he gave us that are not particularly related to sex. (Generic principles, like be charitable). God is the ultimate expert on who we are and what is good for us, because he made us. We can be mistaken about what is good for us – He never is. Asking what his design, his purpose, is – that is a way of confirming something at the highest level of authority.
Why couldn't the primary purpose of sex be pleasure? This is hard for me to explain, but let me try. The primary purpose of sex can't be pleasure itself because pleasure isn't a good in and of itself. It isn't a bad in and of itself, either. Let me use some examples to try and draw out this point.
Some men get pleasure from being cruel to animals, from raping small children, or from torturing people. Other men get pleasure from reading to their child, giving money to the poor, or having sex with his wife. Although a man's motivation may be the pleasure that he derives from it, that pleasure is not what makes the action good or bad. Now if we look at things like fishing, reading literature, sports, etc. it may seem that the purpose of these is pleasure. But I would claim to the contrary that the purpose of these is recreation. Recreation/rest is another thing which is part of God's design for us. (That's why the Bible says things like God rested on the seventh day, and keep holy the Sabbath, and the Sabbath was made for man). Rest is something which is itself a good thing for us, the way giving money to the poor is a good thing.
The only pursuit that I can think of that serves no purpose whatsoever other than pleasure, is drugs. Cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. give us a pure jolt of pleasure without doing anything else that is good for us. And because of that, they are addictive. Imagine a device which could send a tiny electric impulse through the pleasure center of your brain, triggering direct instant pleasure without doing anything else physically harmful. Now imagine what kind of effects such a device would have. Would it not be more addictive than a drug? Would it not lead to people wasting away because they did not have the motivation anymore to take care of themselves (that is, to do what God designed to be good for them)?
Pleasure isn't an end; that is, it isn't something good by itself, separate from any direct good. And, if we get pleasure from something that is sick and twisted, like if someone really gets off on pulling the legs off of animals, then the pleasure itself becomes something sick and twisted. But, joined with something that is good for us, pleasure becomes itself good, like the enjoyment of delicious food. This pleasure is a gift from God, something to rejoice in and thank him for.
On celibacy:
A priest is not supposed to be a marriage counselor, whether the priest is married or not. If a couple is having serious trouble with the marriage itself, they should go to an actual marriage counselor. A priest is supposed to be a spiritual advisor; this will likely touch on issues relating to marriage sometimes, and for this purpose I don't think it is necessary for the priest to be married, as long as he is wise.
On the unitive principle:
The unitive principle is not primarily about how much each couple enjoys the sex act. The unitive principle is about two people choosing to be in union with each other. While we might *feel* more united with someone when we enjoy sex the most, we really *are* united with them more every time we choose to have sex with them. If a woman gives in to her husband, even if she hates the actual sex, then she is choosing to be united with him. This could be done well: voluntarily choosing to sacrifice her interests for his good, or at least to obtain peace between them or make him leave her alone for awhile. This does not offend the union between them. Her giving in could be done badly, if she chooses to give in and then resents him for something that was within her power to stop. This might offend the unitive principle. If the woman holds out and does not give in to her husband, but he forces himself on her anyways, then he has raped her and the unitive principle is very much violated.
On homosexuality, I would agree that becoming a priest to hide or disguise homosexuality is not healthy behavior, not a good reason to become a priest.
On abortion:
I don't care much about the results of census counts, but I suppose it would make sense that a society which recognizes the unborn as people would also include them in the census, as much as they count other babies.
Let me say for the record that Catholic teaching doesn't generally recognize legal questions as doctrinal matters. The Magisterium can, does, and should give its opinions on what ought to be legal or how the state ought to accomplish something, but these opinions are not binding teachings, and faithful Catholics can disagree. So when I talk about what I think should be legal and such things, I am giving my opinion.
Regarding abortion trials, I do not think that we ought to retroactively accuse every woman or doctor who has ever had/performed an abortion. I think we ought to make a law, preferably an amendment to the constitution, recognizing the unborn as full persons/citizens under the law, and forbidding abortion. If this happened, most abortions would cease, because most abortions in the U.S. are done for convenience, and it would cease to be convenient if made illegal and prosecutable. Any “back-alley” abortions would usually be done out of desperation. Those I believe ought to be tried in a court of law with all the same general considerations that go into other murders.
For the record, if it were up to me, the same law that forbade abortion would also include funding for centers where women can go if they are in desperate situations. This would especially apply to a 12 year old girl who has been raped by her father. She NEEDS to get away from him. She needs a safe place to go. And once she is there, I honestly don't believe that it is better for her, that it helps her in any way, to have her baby killed. If anything, the stories that I have heard indicate that having the baby after being raped can be a healing thing, and that aborting it is more likely to aggravate the grief and pain. Even if the mother really doesn't want to keep the baby, though, the fact is that we don't get to kill innocent people just because they cause us grief and heartache and trouble.
If a fertalized egg is the same as a person why do pro-life people thrill in showing sonograms of how a fetus looks at so many weeks? What difference does it make?
The abortion debate is first and foremost a debate from the imagination. Can you prove that Blacks are human persons? That they innately have all the same rights as a white person? It's not possible, any more than it is possible to prove that a White someone is as fully a person as a black person is. The reason you can't prove something like that is because “personhood” is a metaphysical concept. It's something we have an intuitive awareness of, not something we measure in concrete terms. So the only way to convince someone that a group of beings is or is not a person, is to appeal to their imaginations. The debate over blacks was played out in the imagination, too: Blacks are more Ape-like, and therefore less human. Blacks have human DNA, and therefore are fully human. When a sufficient majority of people believed that blacks are fully human, then we made laws which reflected that, laws which encapsulated or enshrined a metaphysical recognition into a legal acknowledgment.
It is similar with the abortion debate. Pro-choicers insist on calling it a “fetus”, because “fetus” sounds clinical, sterile, impersonal. Pro-lifers insist on calling it a “baby”, because “baby” sounds like a person, in our imaginations. Pro-abortion legislators have opposed “Right to Know” laws which require women to be informed of risks or the baby's development, because they know that some women will be influenced by that to choose not to have an abortion. Anti-abortion activists thrill to show people pictures of the unborn because they know that if it LOOKS like a person, then people will be more likely to BELIEVE it is a person. If you imagine it as a “blob of material”, or even as a “parasite” or “cancer”, as some of the more extreme abortion proponents have referred to the unborn, then of course you are not going to think it is a person. (You yourself referred to your daughter's miscarriage as “blood and tissue”). If you imagine it as a miniature human (less physically developed than an adult, but even newborns are less physically developed than adults), then you are more likely to think of it as a human being with its own rights. I repeat, the abortion debate is first and foremost a battle over people's imaginations.
This aspect, by the way, has been present from very early on. Augustine, relying on Aristotle's distinction between formed and unformed, imagined the child to be a person when it was “formed”. Some have imagined that a child is a person after the “quickening”; after the mother can feel the child moving inside, it becomes easier to imagine it as “real”.
Now let me present a case. (Not proof, but an appeal to your imagination).
A fertilized egg is certainly human, as opposed to rabbit or ape or dandelion. It is alive, because it can die. It is a separate person from the mother or father, because it has different DNA from either the mother or father; DNA that is unique. It is therefore a separate human being. Is it a person of its own? If a crime happened involving a man killing a woman with a fertilized egg in her, and the lab technicians DNA-ed everything in order to see who was present, they would identify the DNA of the fertilized egg as a separate person, and conclude that there were three people present.
Is a five month old baby as much of a person as an adult? Is it ok to kill a five month old baby if that baby's existence threatens someone else? What about a two-week old baby? Why should a baby that has been born for two weeks be different, metaphysically, from a baby that is two-weeks pre-birth? Trace the development all the way back to the fertilized egg; at every stage after conception, the baby develops. The baby never stops developing physically until they become an adult, and even then they still continue to change. At what stage is there any good reason to think that suddenly the developing life goes from being not-a-person to being a person? Conception is the most obvious time: it is when the new DNA is formed, it is where everything begins. If our imaginations have trouble embracing the idea that a single egg is as much a human being as an adult with no pieces missing, is God likely to have such a failure of imagination? He who has never been guilty of thinking that blacks, or Jews, or anyone else was less human than another?
Classifying people as not-people is, arguably, the worst crime people can commit against each other. Don't you think we ought to err on the safe side when it comes to doing this with the unborn, and consider them as people rather than risk the possibility of treating a person as something less?
You mentioned your son who died and your daughter's miscarriage. I hope you don't mind me talking about it. I would say that the end-of-life case is fundamentally different from the case of abortion. There was never any doubt about your son's personhood. There the question was whether he was already dead (and the machines that kept him breathing merely simulated life) or whether he was still alive and present. You say those cells were not him; I know of no reason to disagree. But they did used to be him. When it comes to a miscarriage, there is a certain similarity; that blood and tissue may not be a child anymore, because the child has died. But there was a living child there, for awhile.
On to the less emotional issue of infallibility:
but when you said on another blog something to the effect we have infallibility I know you did not mean on all important issues of faith and morals we're right.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “important”. I think the Church is correct in all its actual doctrine, but not necessarily in matters that are important in non-doctrinal ways, like whether we should build a fence around America or whether priests should be allowed to marry.
Proof: We have said we are infallible and that has to be true because we are infallible."
I had to laugh at that. Yes, that is a very circular argument. In general, I don't think the Church is very interested in proving infallibility, except for some apologeticists. Let me try to outline a case for it. Read Galatians 1 – 2:3. Even if you don't accept it as a spiritual authority, think of it in historical terms. Paul, who goes on and on about how he received the gospel from Jesus directly and not from humans, then goes on to say, “I traveled up to Jerusalem again, with Barnabas, and I took Titus with me too. My journey was inspired by a revelation and there, in a private session with the recognized leaders, I expounded the whole gospel that I preach to the gentiles, to make quite sure that the efforts I was making and had already made should not be fruitless.” Paul, self-proclaimed apostle, who boasts rather long and hard about the supernatural source of how he knows what he's been preaching, still admits that everything would have been in vain if the apostles had disagreed with him. This is the ultimate acknowledgment that the apostles, the “recognized leaders”, not individuals – not even ones who have been directly visited by God – are the final authority for the believers in what is true and what is not. If this is the way the early Church thought, the ones who had walked with Jesus himself, is this not a good reason to believe in infallibility? (This is an argument in favor, not proof; there is not generally proof in spiritual realities).
Another argument in favor of infallibility in general is simply the historical one. How do you think the Incarnation theory could have won out over the others, if the Holy Spirit did not offer some protection?
Despite Pius' frightening anatama, I just don't believe at the last judgment hell or heaven is going to be decided on this when the great majority of catholics don't understand the immaculate conception and believe Mary is with God but aren't sure how she got there.
Technically, Pius' anathema requires Catholics to believe in the Assumption as he laid it out. The teaching of the Assumption is itself dogma; and all dogmas of the Church are true. But I don't think the Church has defined it as dogma that all dogmas ought to be dogmas, if you can follow that train of thought. That is... you have to believe the Assumption is true (if you are Catholic, at least), but I don't know that you have to believe that anyone who doesn't believe in the Assumption is going to hell. Does that distinction make sense?
The church: we declare this doctrine has always been held by the faithful, but we need to declare it because many don't believe it.
Laughing again. This is how my father once explained his take on this. A single document has many statements. Some of these statements are doctrinal, but not all of them have to be. The actual claim that something has always been believed by the faithful is necessarily a historical claim rather than a claim about faith or morals. Therefore, it is not a claim which is subject to infallibility. My own idea is that such statements about believers always believing something are never the thing which is itself being solemnly defined, so they do not fall under infallibility on those grounds.
I suspect Jeff was hurt by you thinking he would say something mean to you and then by you refusing to believe him when he said that wasn't how he meant the comment. Keep him in your prayers.
Happy trails folks. I'm gonna make like David Morrison and leave blogging. It's sucking up too much time. And the traddies are jerks. Later! B
ReplyDeleteAnna, I'm not being smug but age has its priviledge. You get an A++. Obviously I disagree with much you say, but you represent your view most nobly. Just one criticism. You may have heard of "the god of the gaps." that's what biologist call Intelligent design advocats; if they see a small somthing that has not yet been explained by biologist the I d's say that proves God designed it. I catch a small tinge of that in your reasoning. But forget it. You have been great!!
ReplyDeleteDid you see Robert's question. Please stay around to comment. And I have one more 'biggie'for you I'll post tomorrow. Jack, this time for Jack
B,
ReplyDeleteI'm kinda sorry you're closing your blog, but if it's sucking up too much time, that's a pretty good reason to, imo. (Hopefully you'll come back long enough to catch this message). Don't let the traditionalists' words get to your heart. Even if you were as wrong about every single point as they think you are, none of them can know how much you're worth in God's eyes.
Robert,
Let me start by quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia on candles.
We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and in the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendour of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments, etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; they were common to almost all cults. They are, in fact, part of the natural language of mystical expression, and such things belong quite as much to secular ceremonial as they do to religion.
Also..
The candle burning its life out before a statue is no doubt felt in some ill-defined way to be symbolical of prayer and sacrifice.
That basically sums it up. Part of the truth relating to the Incarnation and the sacraments is that human beings are fundamentally both spiritual and physical beings. Involving ourselves bodily in our worship and prayers involves us more completely than if we worship or pray with our minds/spirits alone. Seen this way, practices like lighting a candle is understood as a physical expression, or a focus, for the prayer that we offer up with its lighting.
It has, in other words, whatever meaning the person lighting the candle gives it. It doesn't accomplish something specific on its own; but it represents a prayer, in a vague sort of way. It helps to the degree that it comforts the person lighting the candle and expresses their prayer; if someone gets in the habit of lighting the candle, it can also be a simple reminder to pray for whoever it is being prayed for.
Does that make any more sense?