Relevance of "FIDES ET RATIO" .....

Originally posted by Palynka
Two quick points:

- Regarding birth control:
The position of the Church is internally consistent. If their faithful follow their teachings, then no children will be had before the couple is ready nor they'll have more children after they've already had the number they believe they can emotionally nurture or financially manage.
I don't see how the Church ...[text shortened]... nouncements are supposed to have the property of infallibility and these are extremely rare.

Regarding point one--how can this be? What exactly do the Catholics teach that will prevent unexpected and/or unwanted pregnancies pregnancies among (presumably happily) married couples?

Originally posted by Palynka
- Regarding birth control:

The teachings of the Church regarding birth control are irrational. The time
when a woman is most fertile is the time when her natural libido is at its
highest (which is, of course, a biologically sensible timing). So, the
Church would have couples who do not want to have (any more) children
abstain from sex during the very time frame that the woman would most
naturally enjoy it.

This itself is a reason to reject the rationale for the Church's teaching.

Furthermore, the only moral association with birth control is that which
comes from faith; there is no intrinsic rationale behind it.

I don't see how the Church can be blamed if the faithful are rejecting their recommendations.

I'm not 'blaming the Church.' But they are not 'recommendations;' they
are moral imperatives. Disobedience is sin. But the concept of birth
control doesn't have any intrinsic moral weight except that which the Church
insists exists. In the absence of this teaching, one cannot make a rational
case for avoiding birth control between consenting couples.

I don't think that the mere claim that an activity has some marginal health benefits (or not) is enough reason to endorse it or to change any moral pronouncements about it.

Uh, what? Something is beneficial and causes no harm isn't reason enough
to endorse it? I see you're already on the way to abandoning the ratio
in this discussion.

The Magisterium has erred and affirmed several times that it did. This does not contradict a basic tenet of Roman Catholic doctrine. Only ex catedra pronouncements are supposed to have the property of infallibility and these are extremely rare.

You are totally wrong.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching...

Whereas the general pronouncements of the Magisterium on political or
liturgical matters are subject to flaw, its pronouncements on morals and
faith are the product of the 'universal and ordinary magisterium,' which
cannot err.

It's not just ex cathedra statements that are infallible, but also the
various conciliar documents and these moral pronouncements of the
Magisterium.

Nemesio

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Regarding point one--how can this be? What exactly do the Catholics teach that will prevent unexpected and/or unwanted pregnancies pregnancies among (presumably happily) married couples?

They teach the so-called 'Natural Birth Control,' which involves noting the
ovulation cycle of the woman through a variety of measures, including body
temperature, vaginal secretions and hormone tracking. It is a surprisingly
accurate system when done correctly. It's also especially effective in making
the efforts to become pregnant fruitful.

Like all birth control, most accidental pregnancies are the product of human
error, in this case the misreading or ignoring of those biological signs.
However, as I'm sure you've heard many times, the only 100% effective
birth control is abstinence.

My objection to this method is not its effectiveness which compares with
proper condom use (in the high 90s).

My objection is that the Church teaches that this is the only proper method
of birth control. My objection is rooted in two arenas.

1) It is unnatural because it entails the avoiding of sex during the
period of time when the woman's body is most receptive to the sexual
act.
As such, this method discriminates against the natural and God-given cycle
in a woman's body.

2a) The Church makes the case that a sex act must be receptive to the
possibility of conception. But, because condoms fail, birth control pills fail,
vasectomies fail, &c, in theory all coital sex acts have the possibility of
conception. In its stance, the Church is speaking out of both sides of Her
mouth: both artificial and natural birth control can result in conception and
both are utilized with the intent of avoiding children. The only difference
is methodology.

2b) Pursuant to the last point, the Church claims that it is the 'artificialness'
of the birth control that compromises the act itself, that one cannot give
the whole of oneself in the sex act if one is artificially obscured. And,
whereas this argument might make sense with respect to condoms, it
is unintelligible with respect to tubal ligations/vasectomies, orally administered
medications, or even diaphragms. And, by this standard, anything artificial
to the sex act would also be immoral, such as lubricants or erectile dysfunction
medications.

Nemesio

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Originally posted by ivanhoe
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I've read it many times, Ivanhoe. If you want to debate, please join in. The objections I raised
aren't addressed by Humanae Vitae (the quality of which pales in comparison to Fides et Ratio,
frankly). Paul VI was a mediocre pope and his election after what could have been a brilliant reform
in John XXIII was nothing short of a tragedy from which the American church continues to reel.

Additionally, the lay commission which discussed the issue of birth control voted 60 to 4 to recommend
the overturning of the issue of birth control in light of scientific advances and the knowledge about
sex that existed at that point (keep in mind, the prohibition was iterated most clearly in the 1930s
at a time when discussions about conjugals were done in whispered tones). The clergy voted
9 to 6 to change the position on birth control as well, but the minority report co-authored by
Karol Wojtyla (eventually Pope John Paul II) wrote:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede
frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the
encyclical Casti Connubi was promulgated). and in 1951 (Pius XII’s address delivered before
the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died).

It should likewise have to be admitted that for a hall a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius
XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would
mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned
thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice
which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same
acts would now he declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which
popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.

That is, despite the prompting of the Holy Spirit from within the commission, Pope Paul VI
under the prompting of the minority report was simply striving to 'save face.' It would raise into
doubt whether the Magisterium was in fact infallible. So, the argument to retain the position
in spite of science and reason was motivated by the very mythologizing that Pope Paul II later
warned against.

Stop trolling, Ivanhoe. You brought up this topic in the hopes of seeing it discussed. If you
didn't want disagreement and discussion, then you should have posted it on some Catholic
website where you guys could all (metaphorically of course) mutually pleasure yourself in that
self-satisfying 'I have the REAL truth' way.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]- Regarding birth control:

The teachings of the Church regarding birth control are irrational. The time
when a woman is most fertile is the time when her natural libido is at its
highest (which is, of course, a biologically sensible timing). So, the
Church would have couples who do not want to have (any mo conciliar documents and these moral pronouncements of the
Magisterium.

Nemesio[/b]

The teachings of the Church regarding birth control are irrational. The time
when a woman is most fertile is the time when her natural libido is at its
highest (which is, of course, a biologically sensible timing). So, the
Church would have couples who do not want to have (any more) children
abstain from sex during the very time frame that the woman would most
naturally enjoy it.

This itself is a reason to reject the rationale for the Church's teaching.

This is not irrational. I don't know why you seem to think that personal enjoyment has some relevance towards moral pronouncements. The RCC does NOT endorse a strictly hedonistic approach to life, hence personal enjoyment is not really a predominant concern in their moral pronounciations. Hence their position is not irrational, nor inconsistent.

Furthermore, the only moral association with birth control is that which
comes from faith; there is no intrinsic rationale behind it.
That the source for the pronouncement is solely faith does not mean it is necessarily contradictory to reason. This also applies to your following paragraph.

Uh, what? Something is beneficial and causes no harm isn't reason enough to endorse it?
Obviously not. If stop eating at McDonald's is beneficial and causes no harm do you really think that's reason enough for the RCC to pronounce a moral recommendation about it? "Uh, what? I see you're already on the way to abandoning the ratio in this discussion." Indeed. Uh.

You are totally wrong.
No, I'm not. Teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-infallible. Only teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium are not. This is very clear under the sub-section "Organs of Infallibility" of the link you quote. Perhaps it's best if you read it completely.

Originally posted by Palynka
This is not irrational. I don't know why you seem to think that personal enjoyment has some relevance towards moral pronouncements. The RCC does NOT endorse a strictly hedonistic approach to life, hence personal enjoyment is not really a predominant concern in their moral pronounciations. Hence their position is not irrational, nor inconsistent.

It's not the enjoyment per se. It's the claim to the naturalness of the
act itself. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable; it's a blessing from God for
couples to use to enrich their relationship, &c, &c. But the Roman Church
would have us believe that couples who do not want to have children
should abstain from sex during that time in which the woman would
most enjoy it (when she is most fertile). That's not the definition of natural;
indeed, it's equally unnatural as any artificial birth control, if not more so.

If stop eating at McDonald's is beneficial and causes no harm do you really think that's reason enough for the RCC to pronounce a moral recommendation about it? "Uh, what? I see you're already on the way to abandoning the ratio in this discussion." Indeed. Uh.

You are not following me. Apart from claims by the Roman Church that
masturbation is self abuse, sinful, and harmful, there is no scientific or
psychological support for its putative harm. In fact, science records a
slight benefit to those individuals who masturbate.

So, the Church is making a pronouncement on the supposed harm of
self-stimulation in spite of the rational evidence which contradicts it.

In your example, it would be akin to the Church making a pronoucement
that it is sinful not to eat McDonald's, that taking a scientifically
justified course of action was sinful.

Teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-infallible. Only teaching of the extraordinary Magisterium are not. This is very clear under the sub-section "Organs of Infallibility" of the link you quote. Perhaps it's best if you read it completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

The ordinary Magisterium is the day-to-day dealings that the Bishops
have with their dioceses, their sermons and so forth. You are omitting
the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is infallibile (I've given
you another article in addition to the New Advent one so you can verify
this). The official pronouncements of the Magisterium fall under this
rubric (like when then-Cardinal Ratzinger would publish his documents
under the Congregation for the Docrtine of the Faith). This understanding
of infallibility goes back to the First Vatican Council in 1870. If you want
a citation from their concilliar documents, I can find it when I get home.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]This is not irrational. I don't know why you seem to think that personal enjoyment has some relevance towards moral pronouncements. The RCC does NOT endorse a strictly hedonistic approach to life, hence personal enjoyment is not really a predominant concern in their moral pronounciations. Hence their position is not ir ation from their concilliar documents, I can find it when I get home.

Nemesio

[/b]I think we must agree to disagree, then. We're kind of going through the same arguments expressed in other words.

That's not the definition of natural; indeed, it's equally unnatural as any artificial birth control, if not more so.
Here, again, I object that "natural" is not a primary reason for moral recommendations to the RCC. In fact, the idea is for the human to try to rise above his natural and animal instincts. The concept of self-mastery is recurrent in the parts of the Catechism regarding sexual acts. This also applies to masturbation as they consider it seeking sexual pleasure outside of the goal of procreation.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree vehemently with their position here, but I just don't think they're incoherent.

In fact, science records a slight benefit to those individuals who masturbate.
Again, the RCC considers more than simply slight health benefits.

This understanding of infallibility goes back to the First Vatican Council in 1870. If you want a citation from their concilliar documents, I can find it when I get home.
Here is the text of the Vatican I 'Dei Fillius'. I see nothing to confirm what you're saying here. If you can provide that citation and it's source, that would be helpful.
http://www.vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm

Originally posted by Palynka
I think we must agree to disagree, then. We're kind of going through the same arguments expressed in other words.

That's not the definition of natural; indeed, it's equally unnatural as any artificial birth control, if not more so.
Here, again, I object that "natural" is not a primary reason for moral recommendations to the RCC. In fact, the ion and it's source, that would be helpful.
http://www.vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm[/b]

In the context of normative ethics, The RCC advocates a Natural Law theory expressed most clearly by Aquinas' "Summa Theologica". Pace this theory, the RCC uses terms like 'natural' in a teleological sense that Aquinas inherited from Aristotle. They do not mean by 'natural' simply whatever is statistically typical of a species or a kind. Rather, they use the term 'natural' to refer to whatever would contribute to or be expressive of excellence or perfection with regard to those properties that constitute our essential nature. See the Stanford Online Encyclopedia entry on Natural Law for more detailed information.

Originally posted by bbarr
In the context of normative ethics, The RCC advocates a Natural Law theory expressed most clearly by Aquinas' "Summa Theologica". Pace this theory, the RCC uses terms like 'natural' in a teleological sense that Aquinas inherited from Aristotle. They do not mean by 'natural' simply whatever is statistically typical of a species or a kind. Rather, they use th ee the Stanford Online Encyclopedia entry on Natural Law for more detailed information.

In which sense do you think Nemesio used it when he said 'natural' before my comment?

Originally posted by Palynka
In which sense do you think Nemesio used it when he said 'natural' before my comment?

It could be read either way, and in any case I prefer to let Nemesio speak for himself on these matters. He knows inestimably more about the RCC than I do.

Originally posted by bbarr
It could be read either way, and in any case I prefer to let Nemesio speak for himself on these matters. He knows inestimably more about the RCC than I do.

Either way? Right.
[...]abstain from sex during that time in which the woman would
most enjoy it (when she is most fertile). That's not the definition of natural; indeed, it's equally unnatural as any artificial birth control, if not more so.

Originally posted by Palynka
Either way? Right.
[...]abstain from sex during that time in which the woman would
most enjoy it (when [b]she is most fertile). That's not the definition of natural; indeed, it's equally unnatural as any artificial birth control, if not more so. [/b]

Yes, either way. It depends on which of the following claims Nemesio endorses.

(1) It is unnatural to refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals in virtue of the fact that, as a statistical matter, humans typically do not refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals.

(2) It is unnatural to refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals in virtue of the fact that these intervals manifest biological imperatives that signify opportunities to achieve the procreative function of intercourse.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I posted this link simply as an official and thus reliable source of information regarding the RCC stance on birth control ... nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by Palynka
Here, again, I object that "natural" is not a primary reason for moral recommendations to the RCC. In fact, the idea is for the human to try to rise above his natural and animal instincts. The concept of self-mastery is recurrent in the parts of the Catechism regarding sexual acts. This also applies to masturbation as they consider it seeking sexual pleasure outside of the goal of procreation.

Ironically, Ivanhoe's trolling will come in handy, then. Click on his link above and read the
(infallible) encyclical Humanae Vitae. Section 11 addresses its interest in Natural Law, that
all sex acts 'must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.'
Both so-called natural and artificial birth control strive to distance the act from the procreation,
and percentage wise, they do so equally effectively.

The Church teaches that the essential qualities of a sex act must be 'unitive and procreative.'
But any birth control is the antithesis of procreative. 'Any action which either before, at the
moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation,' the
document reads.

But in section 16, the encyclical makes its appeal to nature:

...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.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married
people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of
means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice
may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In
the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they
obstruct the natural development of the generative process.

The Pope is appealing to the woman's natural biological cycle, but is ignoring her God-given
natural libido. In utilizing the faculty provided to them by nature, they are denying the woman
the full-breadth of intimacy that one experiences in the throes of sexual intimacy. There can
be no doubt that this is intrinsically frustrating for establishing the unitive qualities of marriage.

So, it's not so much how I understand natural, but what the Church is advocating. The
Church is appealing to the natural cycle as a means of regulating the frequency of birth. She
would have the faithful say that a sex act during the infertile period is opened to procreation
when in fact it's no more opened to it when artificial birth control methods are used. She also
appeals to the natural/biological periods of infertility as God's way of permitting the unitive side
of the sex act to take place, when in fact it's less natural than the fertile periods for the woman.

This is another example of the absence of ratio in the fides.

Again, the RCC considers more than simply slight health benefits.

The 'thing' that the RCC considers is the product of blind faith with no evidence. This is the
division between fides and ratio that I'm addressing. There is no rational reason for
anyone to conclude that there is harm caused by masturbation except for the fact that the Roman
Church asserts it. The RCC has expressed an opinion, an opinion which has no rational support
in the world of science or psychology. But, She would have believers adhere to that opinion in
spite of that which science and psychology indicate.

Yes, yes. It hurts the soul, She asserts, even while it's healthy for the mind and body. And Her
evidence for this? None: just axiomatic claims to the knowledge of the mind of God.

This is a departure from reason.

Here is the text of the Vatican I 'Dei Fillius'. I see nothing to confirm what you're saying here. If you can provide that citation and it's source, that would be helpful.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203%20On%20faith

Point number eight.

Remember, this is a Conciliar document, which is binding. It is in this document that the teaching
of ex cathedra is pronounced. Note that the document reads:

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed: which are contained
in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the church
as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her
ordinary and universal magisterium.

And so, I return you to the New Advent article or the Wikipedia one for the definitions of what
comprises the ordinary and universal magisterium and how certain official publications from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith qualify as infallible.