Last week Pope Benedict spoke out against gay marriage and civil unions. "Only the rock of total and irrevocable love between a man and a woman is capable of being the foundation of building a society that becomes a home for all mankind," the pope declared, speaking at a conference on marriage and the family on May 11. He added that marriage was between a man and a woman "who are open to the transmission of life and thus cooperate with God in the generation of new human beings."
The Catholic Church's opposition to homosexuality has never been mainly about the bible. This fact is to its credit: taken literally and as a whole, the bible is an unreliable moral guide; taken critically, it fails to provide good grounds for a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.
Instead, the Church's main arguments against homosexuality have been rooted in "natural law," and specifically the premise that sex must be open to procreation. Thus, all deliberately non-procreative sex is sin.
Consider for a moment the implications of this premise. Contraception is an obvious no-no, given the Church's position. So is masturbation. These facts are enough to make hypocrites of many Catholics who condemn homosexuality "because the Church says it's wrong."
Also, forbidden, though far less often discussed, is orgasmic non-coital sex between married heterosexual partners, such as oral sex, masturbation of one's spouse, or anal sex. (Such acts are permitted as foreplay, but never on their own.) Official Catholic doctrine permits no exceptions here. Imagine the case of a man injured in such a way that he can no longer pursue coital sex, but still enjoys performing oral sex on his wife for the intimacy it achieves between them. It would seem permissible (perhaps even selfless and admirable) for him to engage in such sex, but the Church says no.
Thus far, at least the Church is consistent in its views. (Stubborn, perhaps--even foolish--but consistent.) But there's one implication of the "openness to procreation" premise that the Church refuses to acknowledge. If sex must be open to procreation, then it should be wrong for sterile (or postmenopausal) heterosexual married partners to have sex. Imagine a woman whose ovaries and uterus have been removed for medical reasons. Clearly, her sexual acts will never be "open to the transmission of life" in any morally meaningful way. But the Church declines to condemn such acts.
Why the apparent inconsistency? Catholic natural law theorists answer that such acts can still be of "the reproductive kind." But it is difficult to make sense of this claim, except as a lame attempt to deny unpalatable conclusions that clearly follow from the Church's position. If a sexual act cannot result in procreation and the couple knows it, then how is the act "of the reproductive kind"? Political scientist Andrew Koppelman expresses the problem well. In his book The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, he writes:
"A sterile person's genitals are no more suitable for generation than an unloaded gun is suitable for shooting....Contingencies of deception and fright aside, all objects that are not loaded guns are morally equivalent in this context: it is not more wrong, and certainly not closer to homicide, to point a gun known to be unloaded at someone and pull the trigger than it is to point one's finger and say 'bang!' And if the two acts have the same moral character in this context, why is the same not equally true of, on the one hand, vaginal intercourse between a heterosexual couple who know they cannot reproduce, and on the other, oral or anal sex between any couple? Just as, in the case of the gun, neither act is more homicidal than the other, so in the sexual cases, neither act is more reproductive than the other" (pp. 87-88).
I once presented this argument before a university audience, and one conservative Catholic student told me that I was ignoring the possibility of miracles. I told him that if he's going to invoke miracles, then why can't I get pregnant? He responded--I'm not making this up--"But that's impossible!" Apparently, God's miraculous power is limited by conservative comfort-levels.
Italy is clearly on the brink of recognizing same-sex unions. Anticipating this, the pope declared that "it has become urgent to avoid confusion between [marriage] and other types of unions which are based on a love that is weak." If only the pope could see the weakness of his own stance.
26 Comments for “The Pope’s Impotent Argument”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Amen, Brother Corvino. I have made the same response when told I am ignoring the possibility of miracles, and they have reacted the same way. This “But that’s impossible!” response suggests that for these people God is not something about which to be humble, but rather serves for them as a beast of burden, existing primarily to make them comfortable. If that is what their conception of God amounts to in practice, how dare they accuse me or anyone else of heresy or blasphemy?
The openness to miracles is something that I have seen invoked by gays many times, though we are usually kidding. Once at a rehearsal for a small vocal ensemble, for example, our director appeared unwell and I asked him what was the matter. “I’m pregnant,” he replied, “and it’s yours.” “I told you not to swallow” was my response. This raised images of the alien bursting out of John Hurt’s stomach in that Sigourney Weaver movie. But if in that case there had been an attending physician on hand to deliver the baby, it needn’t have been fatal for the unwitting carrier. Not that I am advocating the pursuit of male pregnancies, but it seems to me a reasonable response to those who talk about sterile heterosexual couples being open to miracles. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And if it makes some people puke, then let them go their way and I will go mine. I at least do not talk about miracles and then presume to circumscribe the Almighty’s powers.
posted by Jorge on
As much as I find the miracle retort funny, I’ve never read accounts of male pregnancy in the Bible.
Immaculate conceptions, obviously, sterile pregnancies, definitely, and they are celebrated in the Catholic tradition. Male pregnancies are only celebrated in the cinematic tradition. Why should people reasonably expect God to do something He’s never done before? Religion is a little more stable than that.
It’s not personal imagination or ideology that limits how God grants miracles. At least, not modern imagination.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Why should we be so presumptuous as woefully ignorant mortals as to presume that God would only do the sorts of things that (according to one book) God has done before? For goodness’ sake, either God is transcendent and all-powerful or He/She isn’t. Our expectations are irrelevant. The fact is, however, that an awful lot of bossy people are constantly telling God what to do.
posted by Jorge on
Well there’s a whole teaching about what God does, what God will do, and what God doesn’t do, although even I don’t believe in all of that. In general I don’t see anything presumptous about using the past to predict the future. Sure God is all-powerful, but what does that have to do with anything? Just because something can happen doesn’t mean that it will. Some things are more likely than others, and based on Christian (or at least Catholic) religious traditions, some miracles are more likely than others, because they are more suitable to what God has said and done.
Sure some people take it to extremes or out of context, but by and large, recycling old traditional ideas of God is not “telling God what to do,” unless you just don’t believe it. If anything it’s the people who are unsatisfied with traditional religion who are doing that.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Sure some things are likelier than others, but we were talking about miracles.
posted by Other Eric on
I first read of this argument and the “miracle” retort in Andrew Sullivan’s Virtually Normal. Initially, I liked the argument because it had a veneer of respectability to it and conservative Catholics, by and large, could not come up with a satisfying answer to it. What I discovered is that this inability was due, in large part to ignorance and pride. The loud will scramble for whatever argument is immediately accessible to their strong-willed minds before conceding that they do not know something.
The more careful answer to this apparent paradox is one of nuance. The sterile couple’s case involves one in which some part of the body is not working in the way that it should. The act of coitus is still plausibly open to life inasmuch as life could be created by the act but for the injury. In the example of the injured man given here, where he is unable to engage in coitus due to injury and so pursues oral sex, the same cannot be said because the sexual act he chooses would be closed to the creation of new life irrespective of whether he was injured or not.
The question of whether or not an act is “open to life” is separate from whether the creation of life is medically possible in every instance. In Catholic thought, the individual is not permitted to consciously do anything to thwart the creation of life, either through contraception or the choice of a sexual act known to be sterile in every instance. Therefore, to seek sexual release, for its own sake, from any act such as oral, anal or masturbatory sex, contradicts the purpose of the sexuality. It has the unfortunate effect of reducing the sexual act from one of responsible self-giving to one of mere recreation.
Catholic thought on Natural Law, and certainly John Paul II’s Theology of the Body require much more than simplistic answers and scenarios from either a conservative Catholic university student or us.
posted by Randy R. on
The church digs itself deeper and deeper. I laugh when people say that church doctrine hasn’t changed in 2000 years. Baloney! Abortion was perfectly acceptable in the middle ages up to the point of when the woman was showing, other times it was to the point of quickening. Now, all abortion is banned, which is something that wasn’t declared until the 19th century.
So the church has to come up with some rationale on why gay sex is banned. They must ban it in all cases, without exception. I wish they had the integrity to say it’s banned simply because they find it yucky. (Except, of course, for those gay priests who still find a way to get some).
posted by Jorge on
Richard: And who controls miracles? Is it God, or a bunch of cosmic monkeys punching mystical typewriters at random? Might not Satan have a role to play as well? Let me give a delicate example. When two perpendicular beams were left standing at Ground Zero, people took it as either a miracle, or at least a sign from God. But when a bakery held an ebay auction a couple of months ago for a pastery bearing an uncanny resemblance to Fox News host John Gibson, it didn’t get much attention. I don’t think there were many “miracle” references either. Why is that? Come on, if that’s not a sign that somebody likes John Gibson, I don’t know what is. And yet people just considered it odd.
With regard to the omnipotence of God and the “impossibility” of some miracles, I think both ideas are too simple. If God is all powerful but merciful, can he condemn someone who by His own standards deserves mercy? Of course. Will it happen? That’s impossible. The thing about the supernatural is that people do attach rules and laws to them to explain that which they cannot understand, and then these things get passed down through history so that a whole lot of people believe mostly same things. Unless of course you’re a believer (which I am), in which case you might believe someone actually received the right explanation. But to attribute acceptance of one particular set of beliefs about God and the supernatural to some sort of neurotic desire to control God is a little unfair and really doesn’t get at the puppeteers pulling the strings.
posted by Grady on
Randy R.
Since its beginnings, Christianity has maintained a firm and clear teaching on the sacredness of human life. Jesus Christ emphasized this in his teaching and ministry. Abortion was rejected in the earliest known Christian manual of discipline, the Didache.
(it reads in pertinent part)
Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
Early Church fathers likewise condemned abortion as the killing of innocent human life. A third century Father of the Church, Tertullian, called it “accelerated homicide.” Early Church councils considered it one of the most serious crimes. Even during periods when Aristotle’s theory of “delayed ensoulment” led Church law to assign different penalties to earlier and later abortions, abortion at any stage was still considered a grave evil.
When biologists in the 19th century learned more about the process of conception, the Church altered its legal distinction between early and late abortions out of respect for reason and biology.
Since that time, science has only further confirmed the humanity of the child growing in the womb. Official Church teaching insists, to the present day, that a just society protects life before as well as after birth.
I?m afraid other Eric is correct. The point is logically unassailable. Those who are permitted to join in the sexual is limited to those who can by design (incarnate) have children. (even if a specific couple cannot or does not produce children). Other sexual acts that cannot produce children are not permitted ? like oral & anal sex. Its perfectly consistent if the premises are subscribed to.
posted by george86 on
Randy R: I think Grady has replied with some pertinent info. Re your point about when the church allowed abortion, I think you are referring to the question of just when the fetus receives its soul. St Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) came up with this: for boys, it was 40 days after conception; for girls, it was 80 days after conception. Offhand I don’t know where he got the 40/80 day figures, I’d have to do a little research for that. Nevertheless, to end the pregancy before that 40/80-day moment was still considered to be evil, tho not as evil as after that time. As Grady asserts, the church modified this teaching over the last century or so, in light of the latest science and biology available at that time.
Grady: You wrote: “Other sexual acts that cannot produce children are not permitted ? like oral & anal sex. Its perfectly consistent if the premises are subscribed to.” You would be right if the church denied marriage to a sterile couple on those same premises. My point (and I think John Corvino would agree) is that the church has conceded an exception to those very premises which it says are absolute. In effect, the church has made those premises non-absolute by making exceptions. In the end, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the church can modify its laws regarding sterile heterosexual couples as an act of mercy, so it should do for the homosexual couple.
I think it has to be remembered that when we are talking about persons whose same-sex orientation is constitutive of their personality, we are talking about people who are not capable of creating or maintaining an opposite-sex marriage. (NB The Holy See has annulled marriages where one or both parties were determined to have what Rome calls a constitutive homosexual orientation.) To tell these persons that they are thereby forced to live a celibate life — that they are denied the option of an intimate, loving bond with someone of the same sex, that their only option is a very lonely future, that they must grow old alone — this, I believe, is contrary to the mercy of God.
posted by george86 on
Randy R: I think Grady has replied with some pertinent info. Re your point about when the church allowed abortion, I think you are referring to the question of just when the fetus receives its soul. St Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) came up with this: for boys, it was 40 days after conception; for girls, it was 80 days after conception. Offhand I don’t know where he got the 40/80 day figures, I’d have to do a little research for that. Nevertheless, to end the pregancy before that 40/80-day moment was still considered to be evil, tho not as evil as after that time. As Grady asserts, the church modified this teaching over the last century or so, in light of the latest science and biology available at that time.
Grady: You wrote: “Other sexual acts that cannot produce children are not permitted ? like oral & anal sex. Its perfectly consistent if the premises are subscribed to.” You would be right if the church denied marriage to a sterile couple on those same premises. My point (and I think John Corvino would agree) is that the church has conceded an exception to those very premises which it says are absolute. In effect, the church has made those premises non-absolute by making exceptions. In the end, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If the church can modify its laws regarding sterile heterosexual couples as an act of mercy, so it should do for the homosexual couple.
I think it has to be remembered that when we are talking about persons whose same-sex orientation is constitutive of their personality, we are talking about people who are not capable of creating or maintaining an opposite-sex marriage. (NB The Holy See has annulled marriages where one or both parties were determined to have what Rome calls a constitutive homosexual orientation.) To tell these persons that they are thereby forced to live a celibate life — that they are denied the option of an intimate, loving bond with someone of the same sex, that their only option is a very lonely future, that they must grow old alone — this, I believe, is contrary to the mercy of God.
posted by Randy R. on
You all may know more about the church’s early teachings than I do, so I can’t argue any further.
However, one point I CAN argue is the statement: “Christianity has maintained a firm and clear teaching on the sacredness of human life. ” The church supporsed slavery throughout the middle ages, and advocating the torture and killing of any person who disagreed with church teachings. Dont’ forget it was the church that lead the Crusades, and planned the slaughter of the Cathars.
Now, yes, the Church may have had teachings about the sacredness of human life, but it certainly never applied it consistently.
And I’m still pretty sure that all abortions were not banned until the 19th century, and it was permissible beforehand to a certain degree. ONe thing I am quite sure of, is that this whole issue of abortion was not a big deal for the church until fairly recently. It was hardly a concern for several centuries.
posted by Randy R. on
AFter a bit of research, I was able to come up with something a bit more concrete. Abortion was not banned in all circumstances by the Church until 1869. Which of course implies that abortion was okay under some circumstances before that.
Turns out that abortion was okay up to the point of insoulment, which was, as someone correctly pointed out the 40/80 day thing. It may have been evil to commit abortion, but it was not a sin. Of course, how anyone back then could determine when the 40 or 80 days had passed I don’t know — they probably didn’t either. So I think that abortion as a practical matter was ignored by the church unless the mother was somewhere long down on the pregnancy. Afterall, it just doesn’t turn up as a big issue until the 20th century.
So much to learn!
posted by Fitz on
Randy R.
I?m afraid your Bit of research is woefully inadequate. Your simply wrong about church doctrine and teaching. Grady quotes from the Diadache above and you ignore it. A Sin is a Sin. Its either mortal or Venal. It cant be evil but not a sin. The Church only argued ensoulment as a theoretical exercise. Abortion at any stage was always a grave moral evil and prohibited. Early Christians were famous for not practicing both this and infanticide (which pagan culture permitted) .
?The church supporsed slavery throughout the middle ages, and advocating the torture and killing of any person who disagreed with church teachings. Dont’ forget it was the church that lead the Crusades, and planned the slaughter of the Cathars?
Apparently you have a beef with the Catholic Church, but don?t get led into every blind alley and specious myth. The Church wiped out Slavery in Europe which was widespread among the pagans in the Roman Empire. In fact the term Slave comes from Slavic. This was the one region were the Church allowed Muslims to be taken prisoner and enslaved so that prisoner exchanges could then release Christians from bondage. Christian Europe became a Feudal rather than slave economy because of the church, not despite it.
As far as Heresy and torture, the Church advocated against capital punishment for all but the most heinous crimes. Blasphemy, witchcraft & Heresy were capital offenses all across Europe for thousands of years until the Church officially stepped in and brought some inquiry and justice to the Charge, with much less stringent penalties.
The Crusades are widely argued, but contemporary historians regard them as a bleated response to thousands of years of Muslim Jihad along the eastern frontier. Christian pilgrims to the Holy Lands were being killed and robed.
I could continue but you need to set aside your prejudice and learn some more nuanced history.
posted by Xeno on
Fitz, you’re totally wrong about the Church removing slavery in Europe.
The Church simply placed limitations on the institution of slavery, turning it into the system of serfdom, which is still a form of chattel slavery. The difference between the Roman system and the Medieval was that serfs could own some private property and they were bound to the land, which the Church and the nobility claimed it was God’s will. It could be seen an improvement from the Roman system, but a great deal of Roman patriarchs actually freed their slaves after years of loyal service.
Personally I think serfdom is more destable than Roman slavery, because it required methods of deception used by the Church and Nobility and denies the true nature of the system: slavery.
The Inquisions comitted were inexcusable, countless of innocents were murdered.
As for the Crusades, I have no disagreement that they were in response to the Turkish invasions of Christian Asia Minor, Antioch and surronding areas. Although the non-church sanctioned crusades such as the People’s (peasant army that caused a ruckus in Hungary), German’s (against European Jews) and Children’s crusade (not exactly an organized crusade, but many groups of children were sold off as slaves in port towns of Genoa and Venice) which resulted in countless of masacres.
posted by Randy R. on
Actually, one of the medieval popes gave a gift of several slaves to someone who fought battles for the pope.
If all forms of abortion were always prohibited, then why did the Church make all abortion prohibited only in the 19th century?
The church’s involvement with the slaughter of the Cathar’s is well documented: The pope colluded with the king of France to wipe them out. For the church, they didn’t want heretics around, and the king didn’t want a group of people who refused his control. It was a match made in heaven! (so to speak!)
I ignroed the Didache for a simple reason: It’s not pertain to this discussion. All it states is that that murder is a sin and is forbidden. I never disagreed with that. The question is whether the church considered abortion, when the fetus is under 40 days in the womb, is murder. No evidence has been presented that this is so. In the absence of any evidence, I must conclude that it was not considered murder, and hence, not a sin.
Otherwise, what exactly would be Aquina’s point?
Furthermore, the writings of Pope John Paul I (one who lasted as pope for only 33 days in 1977) as a bishop and cardinal clearly indicate that his research showed that abortion was allowed until the quickening stage in the middle ages, and often offered this position as a compromise in the abortion wars. That this is hardly a surprising position is indicated that he was in fact elected pope.
As for the Inquisition, it started out fairly benign, but soon, the church was publishing manuals on how to torture people to get the truth out of them. Yes, quite a few were actually acquitted, but only after they were tortured and confessed to their ‘evil behavior’ and — most importantly — provided more names of people to accuse and torture. Furthermore, an accused could spend years in prison before his trial would come up, and even if acquited, could still be held in prison indefinately. This is hardly the ‘regard for the sanctity of human life’ that prompted this whole exchange.
I agree, I DO have a beef with the church. I have a beef with any institution that is based upon hypocracy, lies, and untruths. Now, I also admit that the church did many good things and there have always been honorable people with in the institution. An we must respect anything that can last for 2000 years. But we cannot be blind to its shortcomings. Heck, even Pope John Paul II acknowledged and apologized for the ‘mistakes’ of the Inquisition, the condemnation of Galileo and other transgressions. So should all Catholics.
posted by Randy R. on
I was watching the HBO special on Elizabeth I, starring Helen Mirrin. Man, what an actor! She is amazing as the virgin queen.
anyway, there is a plot point in the movie that I recall from my history studies is actually based upon fact. The pope at that time issued an edict calling on all catholics to kill the queen. Any catholic killing her would not be considered a murderer and in fact would receive the pope’s blessing. The reason? She was a protestant heretic sitting on the throne.
Hardly any respect for the sanctity of life there, eh?
posted by george86 on
The comments in this thread are going way off base, unfortunately. From a discussion on certain contradictions in RC teaching on sexuality, it has devolved into a rather silly attack on all of the Catholic Church. Randy, your latest comment on the pope authorizing the murder of the Elizabeth I is of the same quality as the rantings of Fred Phelps and people of that ilk.
I’m not saying the Church is always right, not by any means. But when speaking about it, you have to remember that the Church is so big and so old that almost anything you might say about has some truth in it: The church is corrupt, the Church is good — The Church is hypocritical, the Church has integrity — The Church has hurt a lot of people, the Church has helped a lot of people — The Church supported slavery, the Church fought against slavery — the Church has subjugated women, the Church has worked for the good of women — etc. etc. etc. It’s all true.
Or to put it in the words of Jesus Christ: the Church ‘is a field of wheat and weeds’ (see Matthew 13:18-30). In fact, not only the RC, but all religions, and also each individual person. No organization, and no individual, is 100% good or 100% evil.
There are things that we can validly criticize, but we have to keep the whole picture in front of our eyes.
posted by Jorge on
Such is the state of widespread anti-Catholic prejudice in this country. This is mild. I’m personally of the view that it’s silly to be feel “responsible” for or “acknowledge” shortcomings that have been corrected so long before I was born that the scars are no longer visible.
I didn’t know the church annuls marriages with homosexual persons. I think it’s reasonable, but on some level I have to ask, what are they thinking if they actually want to stick to their doctrine? It’s that kind of situational kindheartedness that gets them slipping down the slope to the point where even this Pope is suggesting same-sex marriage is some kind of “weak love.” Unless that’s a bad translation, you can’t take that lightly. Calling gay relationships “weak love” is not progressive enough for many people, but it’s about where the center in this country is moving in the form of civil unions.
posted by Randy R. on
George, I agree with you completely! I said that same thing, that there are good things about the church, AND bad things. That’s exactly the point — the church is an institution, and it’s complex. Which is precisely why it’s silly to make comprehensive statements such as “the church has always had a high regard for the sanctity of life.” Sometimes, yes, but always? No way. Hence the genesis of my postings.
posted by The Gay Species on
John, you missed the elephant in the middle of the room, while examining pictures against the wall.
What, pray tell, is “natural law,” but laws of nature. Oh, I know Aquinas et alia have THEIR conception of it, which is nothing like the laws of nature. But any institution that builds its moral code around such nonsense must tumble down with the rest of the artifice.
Sadly, biblical fundamentalist and nativist Christianity have been so perverted by their disciples that they CAN’T appeal to biblical precepts NOR to “natural law” ones. Jesus wasn’t an advocate of either, if I remember correctly.
I agree that on THEIR terms their arguments are untenable, but even they know this. So why buy into THEIR terms? It’s all metaphysical nonsense of the worst kind!
At least the Nazarene was a true radical, too radical for established Christianity and the Reformed type to buy into. Alas, the “natural law” crap. But here YOU are buying into their nonsense, perpetuating their myths, and expecting a different answer, that cleverly, you get. But the whole charade is more than tired, and not worth combating. Use your rhetorical skills for better issues.
posted by The Gay Species on
John, you missed the elephant in the middle of the room, while examining pictures against the wall.
What, pray tell, is “natural law,” but laws of nature. Oh, I know Aquinas et alia have THEIR conception of it, which is nothing like the laws of nature. But any institution that builds its moral code around such nonsense must tumble down with the rest of the artifice.
Sadly, biblical fundamentalist and nativist Christianity have been so perverted by their disciples that they CAN’T appeal to biblical precepts NOR to “natural law” ones. Jesus wasn’t an advocate of either, if I remember correctly.
I agree that on THEIR terms their arguments are untenable, but even they know this. So why buy into THEIR terms? It’s all metaphysical nonsense of the worst kind!
At least the Nazarene was a true radical, too radical for established Christianity and the Reformed type to buy into. Alas, the “natural law” crap. But here YOU are buying into their nonsense, perpetuating their myths, and expecting a different answer, that cleverly, you get. But the whole charade is more than tired, and not worth combating. Use your rhetorical skills for better issues.
posted by The Gay Species on
Jorge writes, “I don’t see anything presumptous about using the past to predict the future.” Welcome to the fantasy of Marxism, another fantasy island. The ineluctable powers of History are driving toward the ultimate Utopia or Apocalyspe. It only depends which glasses one uses.
posted by kg on
I wish that people who follow a religion (esp Christian and Catholic) could just be honest and say out loud- I believe in my religion just because I want to and I don’t want to know or face any facts that contradict, in any way, my desire to follow my religion.
It’s a contradictive world out there. And ignorance is bliss.
posted by Cartographer on
If God can cause a sterile couple to conceive by miraculous intervention, why is it necessary that they have sex first? The miracle, presumably, can occur with or without the sex act. If so, what does the possibility of a miracle have to do with the permissibility of their having sex?
I have to assume that the Catholic natural law theorists who OK sex between a married, but sterile couple, are not relying on the “miracle theory” at all. They must be saying that such sex is all right because it’s indistinguishable in all outward appearance from true procreative sex — which is not terribly consistent with the usual emphasis of Christian ethics on knowledge and intent. I think they are in an intellectual corner with no good way out.
posted by Joe Lisboa on
could continue but you need to set aside your prejudice and learn some more nuanced history.
Now *that’s* rich.