Okay. So wouldn’t that mean all sex in which the couple does anything to avoid pregnancy is immoral? Why is one way of using sex not for its purpose okay but others aren’t?
It IS blatantly silly though. Sex is either for procreation, or its not. There’s no rational reason to allow certain ways of avoiding pregnancy but not others.
As for saying that the “purpose of the sex act is getting sperm in the vagina” - that’s a dodge. No, that’s the act itself, and it has no meaning with the actual purpose.
There might be a logical reason that we don’t know about yet, but will become evident down the road.
I think the history of capitalism gives us some reason to believe we might have been wrong to cavalierly disregard traditional Christian teaching about usury, for example.
Likewise, it could be that some of the Christian sexual prohibitions might make sense for medical or psychological reasons that we don’t know about yet. (Certain sexual acts, for example, have a much higher disease risk than others).
I am not a divine command theorist, and I don’t think God would have forbidden homosexual sex acts just for the hell of it (which makes me doubt that homosexuality, per se, is forbidden, since I can’t see a good reason for it). Nevertheless, there might be a few laws that have no intrinsic purpose, and that He imposed on us to teach us the virtue of obedience. I think most divine laws are there because in some way they are good for us, or for society.
I think promiscuity and adultery and infidelity and rape are bad ideas because they hurt others. I don’t think disease has any place in the argument or sneezing would be a mortal sin (or even breathing).
I have little if any truck with moral theories that don’t prioritize harm and help.
Look, I’m asking for logic. If you can’t provide it, just say so. I won’t hold it against you. I’m not asking you to believe or not believe something.
But that’s a logical argument. Saying “maybe someday we’ll get some logic” isn’t.
Great. But we don’t base rational decisions on what we don’t know yet.
But now I get to say that maybe someday we’ll find out that there’s a good reason God gave us for forbidding homosexuality! Same “logic.”
I don’t believe God said anything whatsoever about which forms of birth control we should use though. Even if you think you can glean what God says from the Bible, I don’t think there’s anything there about it.
It’s policy made by church leaders that is logically inconsistent. That’s all. Even you reject such policies, such as the ban on homosexuality. So why try to explain them?
Well, it would be fairer to say I’m agnostic about the moral status of homosexuality, though leaning towards the liberal side. I’m certain that homosexual orientation is not a sin, and I doubt that all homosexual acts are a sin, but I’m far from certain about that.
It’s also possible that the practice Paul was criticizing in Romans 1 was anal sex, full stop (which is engaged in by quite a few heterosexuals, for what it’s worth). That was the way some in the early church interpreted it.
So why do you feel so free to use critical thinking with regards to homosexuality, but when it comes to birth control methods you don’t want to touch it?
No one can know what God has joined or not. Some marriages are just judged to be invalid. Some let a re-marriage to take place if the one will consent to convert.
Personally, I don’t think the Catholic Church’s position on birth control is logically consistent (but, then again, I’m a Lutheran - we have a habit of thinking the Catholic Church isn’t logically consistent), but it may have been at one point in time. At some point, the Catholic Church’s position on sex was that it was mostly for procreation. Therefore, anything that was designed to frustrate that was not ok. Then there was a lot of hubbub and the Church said, ok, natural planning is ok, but nothing else (which is where they reside in logically inconsistency to today)! The one thing I do know about the Catholic Church is that it is extremely old and therefore any changes take a ridiculously long time to affect - I think at some point they’ll accept birth control (at least condoms - maybe not the pill as it affects hormones and they’ll have to think about that one), but not within 100 years of the Anglican Communion doing so (was in 1910 that the Anglicans said it was ok?).
Anyways, on the other point - I do believe Jesus fulfilled the law on the cross, but also his entire ministry seemed to be focused on the Spirit of the Law over the Letter of it. In that the Law was given at that particular time to deal with particular things (ie, pigs had nasty diseases). What was important was the reason for the Law, not the individual parts of it that dealt with specific things for that specific time (I fall into the notion that God speaks to us in a way that we can comprehend and gradually gives us more knowledge when we are ready for it - John Calvin’s Theory of Accommodation speaks on this, which is also amusing for Calvin calling the Book of Genesis as God’s “babytalk”).
I apologise for asking you this, since you’ve pointed out it’s not necessarily a view that you follow, but you seem knowledgeable about it and the Catholic Church; by the same basis, does it also consider an infertile person having sex to be immoral in all cases, given that it cannot be for its intended purpose?
Anglicans reluctantly conceded that birth control might be OK in 1930, I believe. It wasn’t till 1950-something that the leadership of the Anglican communion made a full fledged embrace of birth control.
I actually think the Catholic Church will embrace hormonal birth control (if at all) long before they embrace condoms (if they ever do). Back when the Pill was initially developed, there was much speculation (eventually quashed by Pope Paul VI) that this was a new and different form of contraception to which the old prohibition on unnatural sex would not apply. It’s quite conceivable that future Popes might overturn ‘Humanae Vitae’ and say that Paul was wrong. It would be much more difficult to overturn the older prohibitions on ‘unnatural’ sex, which would cover condoms: those are much more deeply rooted in Catholic theology. The ultimate reason, I think, is that condoms are viewed as altering the nature of the sex act. A sex act on the Pill is exactly the same as a sex act without the Pill, except that the woman happens to be in a state of infertility (which she would be in 75% of the time anyway).
For more discussion of the pill vs. condoms, and the moral differences between them, here’s this very interesting blog post (from a conservative Catholic who opposes all artificial contraception).
Money quote:
"The perceptible acts (like a condom, withdrawl, etc) from that perspective, are seen to make the sex act not even really valid sex in any natural sense. The withholding of the transmission of the semen by the man, or (in the case of something like a diaphragm) the withholding of receptivity of it by the woman…make the act basically just mutual masturbation. The correct “syntax” of sex just isn’t there, which involves, on the phenomenological level, the completion of total self-giving in that act.
“However, the valid act doesn’t require, for example, the presence of any sperm in the semen. Or for the woman to be fertile, or even have a uterus (a woman after a hysterectomy may still have sex). As with any sacrament, only perceptible differences matter on this level. Sex has to be procreative, but it does not have to be reproductive. It has to be the type of act which (on the perceptible level, at least) could be fertile, which signifies the creation of life…but it does not need to actually produce its fruit except implicitly.”
Hmm, you are probably right. I was looking at it in a completely different way, but reading over your paragraph here, I think that this may have more of an impact on Catholic thinking on the matter.
ZeroSyde I was raised atheist, actually, and the church to which I converted doesn’t preach against contraception. I simply find the argument somewhat convincing, on its own terms.
I find it absurd. I think it’s absurdity is self-evident too.
You can avoid pregnancy, but only in a way that makes it kind of feel like you aren’t, even though you both know you’re avoiding it.
It’s the standard religious bullshit that substitutes petty rules to get around basic principles. It’s rationalization. It’s dishonest.
It’s either wrong, or it’s not. The church should either demand that people never ever have sex unless pregnancy is possible, or it should drop the idea that it’s actually doing that while still allowing people to have sex for fun.
I think a large number of Catholics have figured out the silliness of the church’s doctrine along with me and that’s why they just ignore it. Which leads in turn to its own members not taking the church or its leaders seriously in general.
When I think of this, I think of guys who have sex with guys but say they aren’t gay because they only do it on weekends or something.
Good Lord, yes. What a blast of gibberish! The act of love is only valid if jizz is received? A condom is a barrier to real meaningful sex? The only value of sex is the risk of conception, otherwise it’s “mutual masturbation?”
I can see these guys don’t have a clue about fellatio and cunnilingus.
