I just finished reading this piece over at CatholicCulture.org. Dr. Mirus makes some good points, but in my opinion, does himself a disservice by not actually referring to Dr. Grisez's works concerning the development of Humanae vitae. I have referenced before Dr. Grisez's analysis of why the comission majority would want to change Tradition. Apparently, Dr. Mirus either a) didn't read it or b) didn't see what I saw. According to Dr. Grisez, one of the reasons the comission was willing to change Tradition was because of the view espoused by a large number of the Council Fathers, that the Church and World were co-equal, and should reflect each other.
It should also be noted that Dr. Grisez also mentioned the radical changing of the liturgy after the Council as a reason for thinking Tradition could be changed. Their reasoning: if something so sacred as the Mass can be radically redone, why not doctrine? More needs to be said on this end. The fact that the Novus Ordo is most definitely NOT the Mass prescribed by the Council, and yet was promulgated and approved by the Holy Father and lauded by many Council Fathers reveals that while the teaching of the Council was solid, the attitude wasn't.
In addition, Dr. Grisez also explained that it is quite possible that overwhelming popular support for contraception influenced theologians into thinking along the lines: "if a majority of Catholics are contracepting anyway, it can't be that wrong... ." This popularism is a fruit of the Council: I have even been told by a priest that a pope can teach definitively on a matter of faith or morals as Pope, and still be wrong if most of the people don't believe it. While the whole sensus fidelium thing can't be ignored, the interpretation held by the priest in question wasn't concerned with historical assent to a particular belief. Rather, this priest was influence by the idea that Truth was determined by democracy.
Dr. Mirus will not allow the Sacred Council to be the cause of the Church's maladies...and in part, he's right. The downfalls of the Council are the result of at least a decade of diminished education and formation prior to the Council. HOWEVER, the detrimental effects of the changing of the Mass, the implementation of the Council's call for ecumenism and the like can't be ignored either.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Nominalism, Protestants, and Rockin Apologist
CA over at Rockin Apologist has been discussing Nominalism, the philosophy that universals stem from particulars. To summarize using CA's analogy: for the Nominalist, the concept of "greenness" exists only because something is green. This is in contrast to the Realist, who holds that something is green only because the concept of "greenness" exists independently of other other things. For the Realist, particulars are compared to the Universal, for Nominalists, universals are compared to the Particulars.
I've got some reflections on this, most, though, on CA's posts.
1) In both posts, CA presents the logic pattern behind typical Protestant thinking. Indeed, upon reflection, nominalism lends itself to relativism. Think about it: if Universals don't exist independent of particulars, but because of particulars, then anything goes. How is this? Well, consider the common Protestant reaction to beliefs different from theirs: "well that's not what I believe, but if it makes you happy, than I'm fine with it." (To be perfectly fair, a good number of Catholics respond the same way, but then again, we live in a Protestant-based culture, so this makes sense.) The typical Protestant concept of the Church Universal is based off of the various different sects of people all professing belief in Christ. In this construct, the Church is a catch-all phrase by which to note all sincere Christians. The construct is based of the fact, as Protestants see it, that there are tons of different groups of people all claiming to follow Christ, yet adhering to different Creeds, and worshipping in profoundly different ways. In addition, there are different expressions of sexual love, so the concept of Love should be based on those different expressions. This continues ad infitum.
2) The Nominalist arguments that CA presents for sola Scriptura and the Protestant view of the Cross may be logically sound, given their Nominal perspective, but are based on a false premises. For example, in the Nominalist view of the Cross, presented by CA, the Cross is the Particular, and the universal is set in relation to that particular. However, such a premise neglects the co-eternal nature of Christ, True God and True Man, consubstantial with the Father. "Eternal" indicates that Christ exists outside of time and space, and as a result existed before and after the event of the Cross took place. Thus, to assume that the Cross explains Christ, and is "once for all" neglects the obvious fact that Christ existed before the Cross. The Universal of Christ existed before the particular of the Cross. The same is true for Scripture and Tradition. By treating the Particular of Scripture as dominant over the universal of Tradition, the arguer is assuming falsely that Scripture preceded Tradition. Scripture clearly tells us all over that the Apostles taught first, and only later did anything get written down. For example, Paul is writing to the Romans...after he went there and taught there. The same is true for the Corinthians, Galatians, etc. Even the Gospels were written AFTER the Apostles had been teaching for awhile. Scripture itself attests that not EVERYTHING the Apostles said or did was written down. Thus, it is more rational to assume that the Universal of Tradition exists separately and preceded the particular of Scripture. In both cases, the Cross and Scripture, however, it CANNOT be understated that the particulars can only be understood by the Universals which brought them forth.
I've got some reflections on this, most, though, on CA's posts.
1) In both posts, CA presents the logic pattern behind typical Protestant thinking. Indeed, upon reflection, nominalism lends itself to relativism. Think about it: if Universals don't exist independent of particulars, but because of particulars, then anything goes. How is this? Well, consider the common Protestant reaction to beliefs different from theirs: "well that's not what I believe, but if it makes you happy, than I'm fine with it." (To be perfectly fair, a good number of Catholics respond the same way, but then again, we live in a Protestant-based culture, so this makes sense.) The typical Protestant concept of the Church Universal is based off of the various different sects of people all professing belief in Christ. In this construct, the Church is a catch-all phrase by which to note all sincere Christians. The construct is based of the fact, as Protestants see it, that there are tons of different groups of people all claiming to follow Christ, yet adhering to different Creeds, and worshipping in profoundly different ways. In addition, there are different expressions of sexual love, so the concept of Love should be based on those different expressions. This continues ad infitum.
2) The Nominalist arguments that CA presents for sola Scriptura and the Protestant view of the Cross may be logically sound, given their Nominal perspective, but are based on a false premises. For example, in the Nominalist view of the Cross, presented by CA, the Cross is the Particular, and the universal is set in relation to that particular. However, such a premise neglects the co-eternal nature of Christ, True God and True Man, consubstantial with the Father. "Eternal" indicates that Christ exists outside of time and space, and as a result existed before and after the event of the Cross took place. Thus, to assume that the Cross explains Christ, and is "once for all" neglects the obvious fact that Christ existed before the Cross. The Universal of Christ existed before the particular of the Cross. The same is true for Scripture and Tradition. By treating the Particular of Scripture as dominant over the universal of Tradition, the arguer is assuming falsely that Scripture preceded Tradition. Scripture clearly tells us all over that the Apostles taught first, and only later did anything get written down. For example, Paul is writing to the Romans...after he went there and taught there. The same is true for the Corinthians, Galatians, etc. Even the Gospels were written AFTER the Apostles had been teaching for awhile. Scripture itself attests that not EVERYTHING the Apostles said or did was written down. Thus, it is more rational to assume that the Universal of Tradition exists separately and preceded the particular of Scripture. In both cases, the Cross and Scripture, however, it CANNOT be understated that the particulars can only be understood by the Universals which brought them forth.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
What is lying? From where I sit.
I was reading Live Actions response to its critics here. For the newbie, Live Action is a Pro-Life group that has undertaken sting operations against Planned Parenthood. These sting operations, done in different states in different clinics, have revealed a callous disregard for the law in Planned Parenthood clinics. Such patterns are failure to report statutory rape to the authorities, failure to notify parents when the law stipulates, and most recently, the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking of minors.
Seeing as the president of Live Action, Lila Rose is a Catholic, Catholic moral theologians have weighed in on the ethics of these sting operations. At the heart of this discussion is the Church's Magesterial discussion of the morality of lying. Essentially, Holy Mother Church teaches that lying is intrinsically immoral. This means that no matter the reason, lying is wrong and is never an acceptable course of action. The question then becomes, what is lying? As Dr. Christopher Kaczor (in the piece referenced above) points out, throughout the Christian Tradition, lying has always been condemned, but hasn't been easily definable.
Below are some private reflections on what constitutes a lie...from my own experience, either things that I have done, or have been done to me.
1) Making a statement that is false, knowing it is false, with the intention of deceiving another into thinking it true...for personal gain. For example, say I was delayed in coming home from work because I was taking my time or chatting with colleagues for a while. When I got home late, I told my wife that I had some important business that needed my attention before I left, knowing that was not true. That is a lie. I would have knowingly made a false statement, hoping that my wife would believe the false statement was true. What tops it all off is that this deception is not for some altruistic motive, but because I don't feel like being accused of not caring about the family over some people at work (or something similar, depending on the situation).
2) Keeping quiet on pertinent information in such a way that a false impression is made...for personal gain. For example, you are offered a job teaching, but you have a couple classes to go before you are certified, and you are scheduled to take those classes in the fall, when you start teaching. You accept, but purposely leave out the fact that you are not taking those classes, because you are afraid you won't get the job then. That is lying. You presented a case to the employer (you have your classes taken care of, and will be certified by the end of the school year) which was in fact not true purposely, because you wanted the job.
3) Knowingly breaking a promise or pact made, but secretly...for personal gain. For example, you have a particularly unhealthy habit, say drinking too much soda. You've made a pact with someone close, say your best friend, that you won't drink any when you two aren't together. Knowing this pact, you indulge anyway. Afterall, they won't know, will they? This is a lie. You made a pact with someone you care about, and you purposely broke it for some personal pleasure. What makes this a lie is the fact that you knew of the pact, and yet proceeded to break it in such a way that your friend wouldn't find out. Truth is a separate reality, and by breaking the pact you made, you have knowingly and purposely presented a false truth to your friend, who has no reason not to think the pact is upheld. That makes it a lie.
4) Presenting a minor detail or secondary reasoning for an action, knowing that there is another greater detail/reasoning...for personal gain. For example, your employer lets you go, saying that your services are no longer required because they are combining your job with someone else's. However, that is not the REAL reason. Sure, they are combining your job with someone else's, for now, but that is not WHY they let you go. The real reason might get them into trouble. So, rather than tell you the real reason, they provide a secondary reason, something they probably did to cover up their real reason. That is lying. Look, in this case, the employer found a way to get rid of someone they could get rid of otherwise. They made up an excuse, which in the long run saved them from legal action. That is lying.
5) Saying something to someone and then, without consulting them, knowingly acting contrary to what you told them...for personal gain. Example: you tell this employee that he'd be a perfect fit in a certain position, especially because he's got the zeal and the desire to remain there long time and bring stability to the position. Then, when new leadership enters into the situation, and your track-recod is on the line (you know, because extravagent administration gatherings at a posh resort in the midst of a huge budget crisis aren't wise), you decide to cut the guy you hand picked loose...because it makes you look budget conscious. To top it off, you don't even tell him the discussion is going on until you decide to let him go, thereby catching him totally off-guard and uprepared. That is lying. You let the poor soul do his job, thinking he'd be there for a while, when you are undercutting the message you gave him. You are allowing him to think he's secure, when he's not, because you have your own hide to worry about.
It is important to remember that some of these actually happened to me...thus, the pain felt from those might cloud my thinking. I mean, are 4 and 5 technically lying? Having had those happen to me, I'd like to say yes.
However, for a more cogent analysis, I think it obvious that the "common denominator" for all the above examples is the personal gain. In numerous Examinations of Conscience, we are asked if we've knowing told a lie, with the intent to decieve. I think, again this is experiential wisdom as opposed to intellectual wisdom, that MOTIVE is hugely important here. Who benefits from these actions? Is it us? Is that what we want? I mean what if the company (or diocese) in Number 4 wasn't looking to protect itself from lawsuit, but rather a particular individual, whom the company was afraid the employee might target? Is that really, then a lie? What if, in Number 5, the individual in question wasn't doing it to save his own skin, but because he was told to by his superiors, who know nothing of the conversations the individual had with the employee? (Although, you'd expect that individual in that case to inform the employee of the discussion). What about in number 2, withholding pertinent information not to save yourself, but to save someone else from slander or worse?
In sum, I agree whole heartedly that all lying is intrinsically immoral, and never acceptable. However, the mere statement or presentation of a falsehood as truth is not a lie...motive helps define a lie. In this regard, I think there is a comparison with abortion:
An abortion is a procedure with the intent purpose of killing a pre-born baby. To reiterate, the sole purpose of the abortion, the motive, or intent, of the action itself, is to kill an innocent baby. Thus, performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with uterine cancer is NOT an abortion: the motive of the action is to remove a diseased organ, but just like an abortion, the baby will die. This is what makes abortion so evil: we are engaging in a behavior for the sole purpose of killing someone. With lying, we see a similar situation. In lying, we knowingly present a falsehood as truth for our own benefit. However, in other situations, falsehoods are knowingly presented as truth for other reasons. An example of this is in the movie Bells of St. Mary's, when Father O'Malley tell Sister Superior that she's been transferred, and lets Sister think he requested it because of differences they had. This had been agreed upon because the doctor thought she might give up if she knew she had TB. Father allowed Sister to believe this, hoping it would help her. That is not lying.
The same could be true of Live Action's sting operations. Sure, Lila Rose and her partners knowingly presented falsehoods as truths to Planned Parenthood staffers. However, who benefited from this action? Surely not Lila Rose or Live Action. Unlike my friend Mark Shea, I do not think this is a case for consequentialism, which essentially argues along the lines "Hey, I don't care how she did it, but she got PP defunded! Great!" For this to be true, you would have to classify what Lila Rose did as a lie. I'm not sure I can do that.
Seeing as the president of Live Action, Lila Rose is a Catholic, Catholic moral theologians have weighed in on the ethics of these sting operations. At the heart of this discussion is the Church's Magesterial discussion of the morality of lying. Essentially, Holy Mother Church teaches that lying is intrinsically immoral. This means that no matter the reason, lying is wrong and is never an acceptable course of action. The question then becomes, what is lying? As Dr. Christopher Kaczor (in the piece referenced above) points out, throughout the Christian Tradition, lying has always been condemned, but hasn't been easily definable.
Below are some private reflections on what constitutes a lie...from my own experience, either things that I have done, or have been done to me.
1) Making a statement that is false, knowing it is false, with the intention of deceiving another into thinking it true...for personal gain. For example, say I was delayed in coming home from work because I was taking my time or chatting with colleagues for a while. When I got home late, I told my wife that I had some important business that needed my attention before I left, knowing that was not true. That is a lie. I would have knowingly made a false statement, hoping that my wife would believe the false statement was true. What tops it all off is that this deception is not for some altruistic motive, but because I don't feel like being accused of not caring about the family over some people at work (or something similar, depending on the situation).
2) Keeping quiet on pertinent information in such a way that a false impression is made...for personal gain. For example, you are offered a job teaching, but you have a couple classes to go before you are certified, and you are scheduled to take those classes in the fall, when you start teaching. You accept, but purposely leave out the fact that you are not taking those classes, because you are afraid you won't get the job then. That is lying. You presented a case to the employer (you have your classes taken care of, and will be certified by the end of the school year) which was in fact not true purposely, because you wanted the job.
3) Knowingly breaking a promise or pact made, but secretly...for personal gain. For example, you have a particularly unhealthy habit, say drinking too much soda. You've made a pact with someone close, say your best friend, that you won't drink any when you two aren't together. Knowing this pact, you indulge anyway. Afterall, they won't know, will they? This is a lie. You made a pact with someone you care about, and you purposely broke it for some personal pleasure. What makes this a lie is the fact that you knew of the pact, and yet proceeded to break it in such a way that your friend wouldn't find out. Truth is a separate reality, and by breaking the pact you made, you have knowingly and purposely presented a false truth to your friend, who has no reason not to think the pact is upheld. That makes it a lie.
4) Presenting a minor detail or secondary reasoning for an action, knowing that there is another greater detail/reasoning...for personal gain. For example, your employer lets you go, saying that your services are no longer required because they are combining your job with someone else's. However, that is not the REAL reason. Sure, they are combining your job with someone else's, for now, but that is not WHY they let you go. The real reason might get them into trouble. So, rather than tell you the real reason, they provide a secondary reason, something they probably did to cover up their real reason. That is lying. Look, in this case, the employer found a way to get rid of someone they could get rid of otherwise. They made up an excuse, which in the long run saved them from legal action. That is lying.
5) Saying something to someone and then, without consulting them, knowingly acting contrary to what you told them...for personal gain. Example: you tell this employee that he'd be a perfect fit in a certain position, especially because he's got the zeal and the desire to remain there long time and bring stability to the position. Then, when new leadership enters into the situation, and your track-recod is on the line (you know, because extravagent administration gatherings at a posh resort in the midst of a huge budget crisis aren't wise), you decide to cut the guy you hand picked loose...because it makes you look budget conscious. To top it off, you don't even tell him the discussion is going on until you decide to let him go, thereby catching him totally off-guard and uprepared. That is lying. You let the poor soul do his job, thinking he'd be there for a while, when you are undercutting the message you gave him. You are allowing him to think he's secure, when he's not, because you have your own hide to worry about.
It is important to remember that some of these actually happened to me...thus, the pain felt from those might cloud my thinking. I mean, are 4 and 5 technically lying? Having had those happen to me, I'd like to say yes.
However, for a more cogent analysis, I think it obvious that the "common denominator" for all the above examples is the personal gain. In numerous Examinations of Conscience, we are asked if we've knowing told a lie, with the intent to decieve. I think, again this is experiential wisdom as opposed to intellectual wisdom, that MOTIVE is hugely important here. Who benefits from these actions? Is it us? Is that what we want? I mean what if the company (or diocese) in Number 4 wasn't looking to protect itself from lawsuit, but rather a particular individual, whom the company was afraid the employee might target? Is that really, then a lie? What if, in Number 5, the individual in question wasn't doing it to save his own skin, but because he was told to by his superiors, who know nothing of the conversations the individual had with the employee? (Although, you'd expect that individual in that case to inform the employee of the discussion). What about in number 2, withholding pertinent information not to save yourself, but to save someone else from slander or worse?
In sum, I agree whole heartedly that all lying is intrinsically immoral, and never acceptable. However, the mere statement or presentation of a falsehood as truth is not a lie...motive helps define a lie. In this regard, I think there is a comparison with abortion:
An abortion is a procedure with the intent purpose of killing a pre-born baby. To reiterate, the sole purpose of the abortion, the motive, or intent, of the action itself, is to kill an innocent baby. Thus, performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with uterine cancer is NOT an abortion: the motive of the action is to remove a diseased organ, but just like an abortion, the baby will die. This is what makes abortion so evil: we are engaging in a behavior for the sole purpose of killing someone. With lying, we see a similar situation. In lying, we knowingly present a falsehood as truth for our own benefit. However, in other situations, falsehoods are knowingly presented as truth for other reasons. An example of this is in the movie Bells of St. Mary's, when Father O'Malley tell Sister Superior that she's been transferred, and lets Sister think he requested it because of differences they had. This had been agreed upon because the doctor thought she might give up if she knew she had TB. Father allowed Sister to believe this, hoping it would help her. That is not lying.
The same could be true of Live Action's sting operations. Sure, Lila Rose and her partners knowingly presented falsehoods as truths to Planned Parenthood staffers. However, who benefited from this action? Surely not Lila Rose or Live Action. Unlike my friend Mark Shea, I do not think this is a case for consequentialism, which essentially argues along the lines "Hey, I don't care how she did it, but she got PP defunded! Great!" For this to be true, you would have to classify what Lila Rose did as a lie. I'm not sure I can do that.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Understanding Humanae vitae, Part I
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which definitively affirmed the Church of Christ's clear and consistent teaching condemning any external act which makes the sexual acts of man and woman infertile, or contraception. The definition given for contraception is an important one, because it distinguishes between human acts and acts of nature. For example, a human act is to remove the penis before ejaculation, thus possible preventing conception, or receiving medication designed to prevent conception. This is different from engaging in the sexual act while the woman is infertile due to the natural cycle of her body. What causes the infertility in the first case is a human act (and therefore wrong), but what causes the infertility in the second case is a natural act (and therefore not wrong).
In the late 1950s, work began on a synthetic hormone that would eliminate ovulation from a woman's cycle, thus render her infertile during the time she was on the hormone. Part of this work was begun by a Catholic, John Rock, who believed his work was within traditional Catholic teaching, which condemned contraception. The development of this chemical means of preventing conception was hailed by many, as a result caught the eye of Bl. John XXIII. To this end, he formed a commission to study the question of marriage, the family, and population. During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI revised the mission of the commission (Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate) to include contraception. However, what is notable is that in his address to the expanded commission, he referred to Pius XII's rejection of a forerunner of the Pill, not Pius XI, who taught that all acts that render the marital act infertile are always intrinsically evil).
During the meeting of the commission, its composition changed a few times. With the changing of the composition, so too did the attitudes of the commission. According to Fr. John Ford, S.J, an eminent moral theologian who was a member of the commission as a theological expert, as the attitudes of the commission changed, so to did the questions they were trying to answer. Dr. Germain Grisez, himself an eminent moral theologian and an assistant of Fr. Ford's during the commission, recalls that at first, the commission centered around the question of whether or not the Church's teaching on contraception could be changed (Fr. Ford and Dr. Grisez held that it could not). Once a majority of the commission held that it could, they went about debating whether or not it should. Eventually, all but 4 of the members of the commission accepted the idea that the Church should reverse its teaching on contraception. Despite this majority, there was minority. However, the materials presented to the Commission's President, Cardinal Ottaviani, were extremely biased. All the counterarguments the minority raised were whitewashed and all but left out. Thus, what the Cardinal received was a heavily one-sided report. Paul VI himself had publicly voiced his displeasure with where the Commission was heading (this was after a number of the majority's documents were leaked to the press), so the Cardinal wanted him to be presented with a more balanced report.
It can be safe to say that the Holy Father found the arguments of the minority more convincing than the arguments of majority. In addition, to that, the Holy Father was hard-pressed on a long, long precedent: since Apostolic times, acts that rendered the conjugal act infertile were always and everywhere condemned. More recently, Pius XI in Casti conubii had clearly taught that all human acts that render sex infertile are always intrinsically evil, and Pius XII had rejected a forerunner of the Pill under the same idea.
I was drawn to this whole saga by a post over at CatholicCutlure.org, where Dr. Mirius provides some sources the give an interesting outline on what actually took place.
In the late 1950s, work began on a synthetic hormone that would eliminate ovulation from a woman's cycle, thus render her infertile during the time she was on the hormone. Part of this work was begun by a Catholic, John Rock, who believed his work was within traditional Catholic teaching, which condemned contraception. The development of this chemical means of preventing conception was hailed by many, as a result caught the eye of Bl. John XXIII. To this end, he formed a commission to study the question of marriage, the family, and population. During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI revised the mission of the commission (Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate) to include contraception. However, what is notable is that in his address to the expanded commission, he referred to Pius XII's rejection of a forerunner of the Pill, not Pius XI, who taught that all acts that render the marital act infertile are always intrinsically evil).
During the meeting of the commission, its composition changed a few times. With the changing of the composition, so too did the attitudes of the commission. According to Fr. John Ford, S.J, an eminent moral theologian who was a member of the commission as a theological expert, as the attitudes of the commission changed, so to did the questions they were trying to answer. Dr. Germain Grisez, himself an eminent moral theologian and an assistant of Fr. Ford's during the commission, recalls that at first, the commission centered around the question of whether or not the Church's teaching on contraception could be changed (Fr. Ford and Dr. Grisez held that it could not). Once a majority of the commission held that it could, they went about debating whether or not it should. Eventually, all but 4 of the members of the commission accepted the idea that the Church should reverse its teaching on contraception. Despite this majority, there was minority. However, the materials presented to the Commission's President, Cardinal Ottaviani, were extremely biased. All the counterarguments the minority raised were whitewashed and all but left out. Thus, what the Cardinal received was a heavily one-sided report. Paul VI himself had publicly voiced his displeasure with where the Commission was heading (this was after a number of the majority's documents were leaked to the press), so the Cardinal wanted him to be presented with a more balanced report.
It can be safe to say that the Holy Father found the arguments of the minority more convincing than the arguments of majority. In addition, to that, the Holy Father was hard-pressed on a long, long precedent: since Apostolic times, acts that rendered the conjugal act infertile were always and everywhere condemned. More recently, Pius XI in Casti conubii had clearly taught that all human acts that render sex infertile are always intrinsically evil, and Pius XII had rejected a forerunner of the Pill under the same idea.
I was drawn to this whole saga by a post over at CatholicCutlure.org, where Dr. Mirius provides some sources the give an interesting outline on what actually took place.
Understanding Humanae Vitae, Part II
Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Papal Commission on requested of Fr. John Ford and Dr. Germain Grisez some materials that would Memorandum Concerning the Mentality of Those that Would Approve Contraception, which was submitted to Cardinal Ottaviani for him to submit to His Holiness Pope Paul VI. At the time Pope Paul was not pleased with the progress of the commission Bl John XXIII established to study birth rates and contraception. Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to balance the reports that the Holy Father would recieve.
Part of this piece includes a series of arguments that those infavor of claiming that tradition should be reversed. Here is one such argument:
c) If interference with nature were wrong as such, contraception would of course be wrong. However, interference is accepted in other areas. Man has dominion over nature, including the human body, its life and the human process of generation. Contraception attacks no real value, but only, a biological process. By this intervention of art, the physiological process is assumed into the life of the human person, Far from being immoral, contraception turns out to be humanizing—since art perfects nature for man.
c) If interference with nature were wrong as such, contraception would of course be wrong. However, interference is accepted in other areas. Man has dominion over nature, including the human body, its life and the human process of generation. Contraception attacks no real value, but only, a biological process. By this intervention of art, the physiological process is assumed into the life of the human person, Far from being immoral, contraception turns out to be humanizing—since art perfects nature for man.
To be honest, I can't understand this. Perhaps, this is why Grisez mentions in his piece that not everyone of the majority agreed with everyone of the arguments. I don't understand how they can say on the one hand "contraception attacks no real value, but only a biological process" and on the other "the physiological process is assumed into the life of the human person." How contraception attack "just a biological process" which has been "assumed into the life of the human person" and not attack any real value? Does the human person not have any real value?
Dr. Grisez mentions throughout his piece that the members of the commission, while all (except 4) agreeing that contraception should be allowed, disagreed as to why. Perhaps this argument gives us a clue as to why. This argument essentially holds that because sex is simply a biological process, not a human act, interference with it should not be all that troubling. I can honestly see why not everyone on the commission would sign on with this rationale. Is sex simply a biological process? If so, why is it so popular today? Sex must be the single most profitable biological process, period. Have you noticed how many "great sex" guides there are out there? Or what about items manufactured to assist in having sex? Or media produced to encourage people to think about or have sex? Or people whose sole job it is to have sex? Heck, some people center their entire bedroom decor around the sexual act, to make sex more inviting in their bedroom. Does this sound like a simple biological process? Lives can be completely ruined by sex! Somehow, I think that many on the majority side of the commission truly understood this, and so didn't want to relegate such a potent action to the category of "natural act" in line with breathing and defecating. However, they didn't take that idea to its next logical conclusion. If sex is so important, and more than just a biological process, than interfering with it would be wrong.
Besides the obvious fact that Holy Mother Church taught emphatically that contraception was forbidden at least twice before 1968, and to reverse that teaching would be to contradict Holy Mother Church, it would also counter what the Church held concerning sex and its importance to the human person. Why would a well meaning, otherwise good person decide for the Church to teach something was clearly contradicted a teaching that went back to the apostles? According to Grisez, it had a lot to do several things. Of those things. Grisez singles out changes to the liturgy. According to him, many of the faithful were thinking that if the Mass could be so radically changed, why not some of the Church's doctrines?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)