The Catholic Magisterium on Contraception
Written on Friday, October 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm | by DJBRecently at Filipino Voices, we have had a lively discussion of the Reproductive Health Bill in a series of posts by several contributors (1, 2, 3 , 4, 5) primarily from the legal, philosophical, political and scientific standpoints. However, there has been no comprehensive consideration of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which steadfastly opposes birth control (unlike other Christian congregations such as Bro. Eddie Villanueva’s Jesus is Lord movement and the Iglesia ni Kristo, whose support may help pass the bill). Even if (and especially if!) the bill passes, we can expect the Catholic hierarchy to insist on its teachings from the pulpits and the mass media. A number of comments in our posts indicate widespread confusion among both the “faithful”, the indifferent, and the “unfaithful” about these deep matters. Until these viral dogmas are thoroughly understood and demolished through reason and charity, through superior argumentation and enlightened altruism, we can only look on with horror, exasperation and chagrin as the people starve and suffer whilst multiplying like rats and rabbits in a desert of fear and ignorance. We must confront the matter squarely now as a moral and philosophical issue right into the Inner Sanctum. Below is an authoritative statement of the Church’s Magisterium on contraception, complete with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to sharpen our wits for the looming, titanic battles in the public sphere. See also the CBCP’s recent statement.
Birth Control
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
Nature
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
Scripture
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
Apostolic Tradition
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The Magisterium
The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14).
This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370). “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception” (CCC 2399).
The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Human Experience
Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, “Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).
No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the “free love” movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.
Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Wishful Thinking
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
- Charles Darwin on infanticide, contraception, women and God
- Things get interesting in Loyola Heights!
- Catholics of and for the 21st Century
- Some fallacies in the reproductive health bill debate
- Call For “Liberators”; Cautionary Words
- When does Human Life Begin? A Secular View
- New Paraguayan President - Independent and ex-bishop
- The Redundancy of RH Bill 5043
- Voting Priests Into Office
- Freedom of Religion is not Religion, Father
Comments
104 Responses to “The Catholic Magisterium on Contraception”
First, let me just state that Im for giving the citizen freedom to choose whichever birth control methods to use, and that those choices are readily available. Im for educating our people on how their bodies work. I believe a majority of our people want the RH bill (Catholics included) and I believe the bill in principle is good and that the arguments of the Catholic hierarchy against free choice of birth control methods are, well, medieval. However…
We are treading a line here between state power and religious freedom. We have to delineate exactly where the boundaries of state power lie. Can the state for example force an adherent of a religion to engage in activities that said adherent considers sinful? In the case of the Reproductive Health bill, there are provisions that call for appropriation of funds from taxpayers (Section 23). Should an adherent of a religion be forced to fund a state project that he or she considers sinful? There is also a provision wherein a health care provider is forced on pain of fines or imprisonment or both to refer a patient to another health facility or health care provider if he or she refuses to perform services he or she considers sinful, among other things (Section 21).
I have always maintained the the state has no business interfering with what goes on in a person’s mind or heart, and this includes a person’s conscience and beliefs. In a battle between state power and religious freedom, Im on the side of freedom — that a person must not be punished because of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof. This bill is bristling with the power of the state, including the power to imprison you for ‘malicious disinformation’ while implicitly reserving for the state the power to interpret what constitutes malicious disinformation. Right now it’s the power of the state against the teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, but what if next time a bill targets another belief system? One not as powerful as the Catholic hierarchy? I think every Filipino who values freedom should defend the freedom of Catholics even if we dont agree with their stand on this issue, even if it is a huge, wealthy institution. I believe we as a people must guard against the State overreaching its boundaries, not only in this bill, but in every other bill.
The link has this to say
“Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.”
However this contradicts what evolutionary biology has found out. Sexual behaviours are not limited to procreation. This is observed very clearly in primates, especially hominins.
Thus if I believe that it is a grave abandonment of reason if I as a Catholic accept this position.
Even Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) wrote that sexual pleasure is an important function of sexual relations. What Catholicism logically argues is that the it is a violation of natural law if humans deliberately prevent conception. The argument should limit itself to this. The argument that each act of sexual intercourse would result in conception is intrinsically wrong and a non sequitur
So as Galileo wrote
“It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.”
Benny’s stand remains the same
why should there be ‘comprehensive consideration of the official teachings’ of the catholic church???
we all know it’s hogwash and based on hocus-pocus pulled from thin air. it’s not longer the middle ages. even italians shun the pope. why are we as a country even hanging on to relics?
my point is keep faith/religion eklat outside the public sphere.
Considering the gravity with which the Catholic Church Magisterium treats the the matter of spilling semen, they should give the above treatise an appropriate Latin-sounding title, like for example, Bukkake, Bukkakelorum.
“However this contradicts what evolutionary biology has found out. Sexual behaviours are not limited to procreation. This is observed very clearly in primates, especially hominins.”
For animals, yes.
“Even Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) wrote that sexual pleasure is an important function of sexual relations.”
Yes, because sex has two aspects: the unitive (this includes the pleasure) AND the procreative (being open to the transmission of life). It’s always both/and.
And of course, even Pope Benedict XVI cannot contradict a teaching that is considered infallible.
“my point is keep faith/religion eklat outside the public sphere.”
Maybe you mean keep morals outside the public sphere?
Jego,
You bring up a central point regarding the relation between the State and the individual. I agree that the State cannot force anyone to use contraceptives or to do anything he or she considers to be immoral. However there is a big difference between immoral and illegal, because the State is responsible for the common good yet there will always be divisions among individuals about morality. For example, Catholics consider many practices of Islam to be immoral and vice versa. Or take the case of the common defense. Taxes support the Armed Forces, yet there are many conscientious objectors to war and violence. Many things that are legal, like gambling, are considered sins by some, yet, if we characterized paying taxes as forcing someone to fund projects he considers immoral, then we could never have a government at all. With respect to birth control, although condoms and pills are “readily available” studies show that many poor people cannot afford, don’t know about them or have been misled about them, even though they are presently legal. Because polls show that an overwhelming majority of filipinos want smaller families, if the State decides that slower population growth rates is a common good, the use of taxes for education on population issues and protection against STDs, through the outright purchase of say condoms, is well within the State’s rights and duties to promote the common good, without infringing on individual rights. I don’t believe the State is targeting the “belief system” of the Catholic Church, when for example it has Science as part of its public school curriculum, even though that is certainly inimical to creationism.
the nashman, “we all know it’s hogwash” — not so fast. we must demonstrate it is hogwash and not just dismiss it as such because lots of people don’t know why it is hogwash.
jester, an important point that the quoted article is very misleading on is the statement that the infallibility of this teaching has been decided. It has not. Even if the Pope Paul VI wrote against birth control in Humanae Vitae, he actually over-ruled his own Papal Commission in 1968, which included 15 cardinals, a majority of whom voted to allow modern birth control! Thus you won’t find incantations like “Let him be anathema!” in Humanae Vitae, which curses have been applied to dogma that have the seal of PAPAL infallibility, like the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Assumption (which I think are the only times the doctrine of papal infallibility have been applied).
Willy
Everyone who has seriously attended biology class would know that Homo sapiens are animals.
The Copernican principle (which is the foundation of all modern science) says that humans in their physical and biological aspects do not have any special place in the cosmos.
RC Church is not the enemy. They have been consistent since day one. realistically, there’s nothing we can do about the Church’s belief. it’s the politicians.
Why belabor the issue. Majority of population wants it. My God, are you people actually debating priests? Isn’t this a waste of time. Belief nga eh.
Debate with priests? Of course! That’s what Rizalists do best. They’ve lost badly every time!
I gotta agree on this one. The RCC is JUST ONE of the myriad of organised religions that infest the Philippines. It just happens to be the dominant one.
Considering that the Philippines is a SECULAR state in principle, the ultimate accountability for legal implementation lies in government officials.
benig0, you make it sound like agreeing with me is painful. I believe pro-condom advocates desire Church approval, one reason why population control is a bust here
DJB,
According to Catholic theology, there are two ways that a teaching may be considered infallible. One is when it is pronounced explicitly by the “extraordinary magisterium” (the Pope speaking ex-cathedra or a special council of Bishops in union with the Pope that speaks infallibly). The second is through the “ordinary and universal magisterium” – that is all bishops dispersed throughout the world united in a certain teaching, as long as they all teach this in a definitive and authoritative manner - “in unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium # 25). The thing with the Catholic Magisterium is that the members the clergy can disagree with certain matters of doctrine as it is being developed, but when a teaching is pronounced infallible, everyone toes the line under pain of anathema. No, the quoted document is not misleading - the matter has already been infallibly decided. Humane Vitae was not pronounced ex-cathedra, there was no need as the teaching contained in Humane Vitae has been constant and unchanging throughout the history of the Church. Due to this, it is infallible and thus, irreformable.
Blackshama,
Animals kill when angry. When in heat, animals also kill their rivals on purpose.
Humans are also known to do both. No less than King David of the Bible did the latter.
I have to agree that some politicians still think that there is such a thing as a catholic vote.
“some”, maybe an understatement.
“not so fast. we must demonstrate it is hogwash and not just dismiss it as such because lots of people don’t know why it is hogwash.”
Well, let me start: Transubstantiation and Immaculate Conception.
I know they are metaphors, the host is just a piece of apa whatever the priest does with it and Mary could not have been pregnant and remained a ‘virgin’ but the church pushes on as if there were a more ‘mystical’ and mythological explanation.
Extraordinary magisterium???? I mean c’mon. who in his right mind can even not laugh at that phrase?
So everytime there is another ex catedra roma locuta causa et finita encyclical coming out of the church, it’s hard to get past the first paragraph with all this nonsense…
Willy,
The real reason that Humanae Vitae does not declare the teaching ex-cathedra is that the Pope over-ruled the commission he himself had appointed after they “decided” that artificial birth control methods were acceptable (by a vote of 9-6 among the Cardinals who were members and an overwhelming majority of the lay members.) This disunity or disagreement between the Papacy and the Episcopate (his peers in effect of which he is primus inter pares) means that Humanae Vitae, as you admit, is not an ex-cathedra declaration against modern birth control methods. The Pope was not speaking infallibly because he was not in union with his brothers, the very Cardinals whose opinion he had sought!
Now, I would accept your statement that it is infallible within the “ordinary and universal magisterium” if indeed we could convince ourselves that the Church’s teaching on the matter has been constant throughout history.
But I ask you to consider the simple historical fact that pills for example, did not even exist in their common pharmaceutical form before the 20th Century, nor have prophylactic condoms existed until quite recently. (Abortion is of course an older practice, but that is another matter altogether for the moment).
How constant could the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium on birth control have been when the dogma of infallibility was invented by Pio Nono in the 19th century when the objects it seeks to forbid the use of, were not conceived of yet?
Granted there have been other forms of preventing and/or avoiding pregnancy since sex began, but I aver that the teaching cannot avoid being in as state of development as you put it, when confronted with hitherto unknown means or methods of exercising one’s choice of whether to reproduce or not, whether to put one’s copyright to his own genome into the public domain as it were.
One only needs to read teachings from the 1960s, and modern treatments by Catholic theologians and Bishops, or even compare contemporaneous statements, and the unerring impression is one of a dogma in development, flux, even change.
I think the infallibility of this dogma can be doubted even by the devout and the faithful, and questioned on these grounds: that it does not meet the Church ’s own high standards for infallibility in both the extraordinary (because of disunity among the Princes of the Church) and in the ordinary magisteria (because it is evidently inconstant–by mere inspection of the historical record and the nature of the material objects and technologies).
There is one further simple proof of the inconstancy of the teaching which I shall reserve for an expected riposte from you.
The word and concept of “angry” is a human construct. We cannot extend that to animals or even to nature. Animals can be “angry” since that is what natural selection selected as an adaptive behaviour.
Animals kill obviously. But killing is also a fact of natural selection.
Again we cannot presume any anthropocentricism here.
the nashman,
You are under a common misconception. The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the idea that Mary was conceived and born without original sin, NOT the biznez of the Virgin Birth of her son, Jesus Christ. The latter is considered to have been a “miracle” in the sense that she became pregnant “by the power of the Holy Spirit”, i.e. that the laws of Nature were temporarily and especially suspended for the future Mother of Jesus Meek and Mild, the Messiah (and NOT, as Christopher Hitchens, wielding Ockham’s Razor most mischievously, that a Jewish mynx lied about her true relationship with a guy named Joseph).
As for transubstantiation, my understanding of that dogma is that it is not at all metaphorical, but LITERAL and PHYSICAL change of bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. Thus here is miracle allegedly performed daily in thousands of Catholic Masses worldwide. One would think there would be vaster scientific interest in such a potentially useful technological gift from God.
yes i know, i was emphasizing the “Virgin” part of the BVM that the Catholic church peddles. Look, they even made Magdalen a prostitute…when they throw all these words around, it really gets my nerves.
kaya nga mahirap paniwalaan ng transubstantiation eklat na yan…dahil it’s alchemy and if works..imagine how much better the world would be. no amount of prayer can change pasig river into wine.
not even current knowledge in physics is infallible and so far physics has been right 2% of the time. the church has a very low batting average of 1% and yet they like to throw ‘infallibility’ along with their crazy opinions that they force upon all of us..
but yes, whatever makes one a better person, be it scientologist or catholic (both the same). let’s all worship privately.
our constitution guarantees freedom of religion and worship, which means our laws should not be based on religious views. catholic dogma is irrelevant in shaping the common laws.
of course this is not practical as most of our lawmaker are religious, idjots, or both.
and I would like to plagiarise a joke:
“If we are all god’s children, what’s so special with Jesus?” LOL
physics has been right only 2% of the time?
(beam me up, scotty; i think i’m on the wrong planet.
)
Like I wrote yesterday, all of you just want Church approval. The rest are just intellectually vain… it’s doing absolutely nothing to help.
strange, brianb, but perhaps you’re right. i don’t know about how the survivability of HB5043 will be, though, if there was no grudging approval of local church leaders (or even just the absence of opposition).
on the other hand, maybe someone here on FV can start a post discussing on whether or not we should tax the church? i’m for taxing church properties that are not orphanages or schools or similar.
BrianB,
Here is another way of looking at it. In a sense, I am looking for Church “approval” by helping it to find a way out of the Infallibility Trap. You see, the big difficulty for Churchmen is that they have no choice but to insist on the teaching because they believe it is “irreformable.” But if they could be convinced that it is NOT infallible teaching but, like limbo, a provisional one, then I can envision a case where contraception would be “allowed” and we could all get on with a more reasonable approach to the problem of an unsustainable population size.
The famous study of sexuality in America by Masters and Johnson produced some hard data on various BIRTH CONTROL METHODS & FAILURE RATE
IUD………………. 6.0%
Pill……………… 7.3%
Condom……………. 15.8%
Diaphragm…………. 22.0%
Spermicides……….. 30.2%
Rhythm Method/NFP….. 31.4%
I don’t know how precise the numbers are nowadays, but the key thing one should notice is that no method makes it “impossible” for pregnancy to occur, not even the Pill. It’s just a matter of degree and probability. But every single method, from those the Church considers “anathema” to the one it accepts and recommends (rhythm) clearly bears the INTENTION to prevent pregnancy.
This is a logical inconsistency that “devout” Catholics and the theologians themselves need to confront.
One thing for sure, even if we strongly disagree with the Church’s position, I believe she can be reasoned with and reformed. The Church wields enormous powers and resources that patriots must regain and harness for the good of all.
BrianB, it does pain me to agree with you.
But since I’m a glutton for punishment, the above snippet of yours leaves me no choice but to painfully agree again.
The solution I believe lies in getting our shit together and actually allowing ourselves the OPTION to BYPASS the Church altogether and get over this pathetic need of ours to seek their approval in such matters.
Whenever we give them the time of day, the bandwidth, or the text space when discussing these things, we keep them in the loop and therefore propagate the medieval power they exercise over our primitive society. The solution is obvious — kick their robed arses off the loop.
We do it discretely anyway — the permissiveness of our society would make a Swede blush. The key lies in an OPEN defiance of what is so obviously a NONSENSICAL stance that the Church stubbornly takes. It is only when we exhibit such a RESOLVE that our politicians will listen.
Benign0,
Somehow that feels like a cop-out. Remember that even Science learned and honed its logic and power in titanic struggles with Religion. Some of our greatest intellectual forebears were “religious”. In various previous posts I’ve elaborated on this idea by making the analogy taken from evolution. Science evolved out of Religion, because though the latter no longer has any substantial explanatory or revelatory powers, the methods of logic are evident in all her writings to a superlative degree. You, of all people, cannot fail to appreciate that!
Here is a favorite website of mine that I highly recommend everyone to visit: The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager
DJB,
You misunderstand the Church hierarchy. The buck stops with the Pope and he has the final say, as the gift of infallibility belongs to the Pope alone as the Vicar of Christ. The theological commission may have had dissonant views, but they were merely a consultative body commissioned by the Pope. The gift on infallibility belongs only to the Pope, as well as the “power to bind and loose”, as he alone has been given the “keys to the kingdom”. Well, you can think of it as a “kingdom” and not a “democracy”. Indeed there have been instances when the Pope overruled even an entire council of bishops, as Catholic dogma is not determined by mere plurality alone. (I could go on with the handing down of what we call the “Deposit of Faith”, but it’s going to be very long). This has turned off dissenters who put more weight on their private opinion, but in spite of that, the Roman Catholic Church remains the largest Church body in the world. Someone please correct me if Islam has already overtaken Catholicism slightly in numbers. See what reproduction can do?
You mention dissent, but dissent cannot be avoided in any organization. What is important is what the Magisterium says. The Official Teaching Authority, that’s what it is, in other words. Note that the entire Christian world was united in its stand against contraception for almost 2000 years, and it was only in 1930 that the Anglican Church broke ranks. In that same year, a good 38 years before Humanae Vitae, Pope Pius XI reiterates what has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church: Contraception is intrinsically wrong. Pope Paul VI only elaborates in 1968. Pope John Paul subsequently reaffirms with “Theology of the Body”. We all know how Pope Benedict XVI stands now. You said in your post “authoritative statement”, because that’s what it is. Anyway, if you’re looking for the normative expression of the Magisterium, look no further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says right there in CCC#2370 that contraception “is intrinsically evil”.
Of course the Church puts premium on following one’s conscience. One may in good conscience run counter to what the Magisterium teaches, but that is not a guarantee that the person would not be in error. Well-formed conscience, that is. Which brings me to Jego’s contention. Even in the US which we pattern our democracy after, there are federal and state laws which protect conscientious objectors based on religious grounds. And by the way, animals have no conscience.
Let me state that I for one, respect conscientious objection to my conscientious objection, even if it borders on the insult. That is a right, no? Also, let me say this is a good blog. Please keep it up.
- Willy
Come on, gather signatures, send them to congressmen. Mobilize. Stop arguing with people that will never bend and will always (DJB) think they are superior to you. Priests are above us in the hierarchy, remember that.
Willy,
Thanks for that clarification on Papal infallibility, which has occasioned a quick review of the sources I’ve read in the past–confirming the accuracy of your second characterization of it. But you also have a slightly muddled formulation of the two magisteria in your first comment, which is understandable given how complex the subject matter is.
Anyway we agree that the Pope is taught to be protected from error in matters of faith and morals by virtue of his office alone.
All Popes — In an unbroken succession from the time of Peter, are taught to possess this most unusual charism of Papal Infallibility.
And yes indeed there have been occasions with the force of an ex-cathedra teaching in which Popes
have over-ruled whole councils of bishops in some matter of faith or morals.
But how does this explain the fact that Popes have been excommunicated by other Popes for having taught heresies while they were Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? (We are not talking about any of the Borgia Popes either who were not heretics and are irrelevant to questions regarding infallibility. There is no such thing as Papal Impeccability.)
The outstanding examples of historically undeniable instances of Papal FALLIBILITY are found in the historical record on at least four Popes:
I am not asking of course that you refute this history, as it is from authoritative and uncontroverted sources, though the argument goes back and forth.
In my view there is glaring evidence that not all Popes are regarded even by the church as having taught only infallible doctrines, not when some have been excommunicated for HERESY.
There is something deeply fallacious to me about the very concept of infallibility, which deep anti-scientific undertones, like the ultimate unelected Supreme Court. And why the Roman Pontiff, as if God were Italian, or something.
The type of fallacy I am thinking about is the self-referential variety, like:
“This statement is wrong.”
You see how if it is right then of course it is wrong, or that if it is wrong then it must be right?
Infallibility is something like that, but I am not a good enough wordsmith to say it any better.
“The Church wields enormous powers and resources”
Not in the so-called developed world. In such parts, the church has been sidelined to officiating the theatrical parts of our lives (ie. binyag, kasal, libing).
It’s only in the ‘developing’ countries where the church holds sway….(ok, except USA where evangelical christians really do have the power…)
nash: “my point is keep faith/religion eklat outside the public sphere.”
The State can’t do that, nash. The Public Spehere doesnt belong to the State; it belongs to us. Unless you want the State to shut people up and deny them the right to practice their religion, which, re DJB, are variants of the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Give that kind of power to the State then youre giving it the power to prohibit opinions you dont agree with and to prohibit peaceful assembly.
DJB: yet, if we characterized paying taxes as forcing someone to fund projects he considers immoral, then we could never have a government at all.
Not exactly a bad thing, IMO. :-D.
if the State decides that slower population growth rates is a common good, the use of taxes for education on population issues and protection against STDs, through the outright purchase of say condoms, is well within the State’s rights and duties to promote the common good.
Here’s the thing: Why does the State have to decide what the common good is? Have we as a society totally abdicated all our powers to the State? It is perhaps off-topic, but it underlies this whole thing: Can we trust the State? Remember this is the same State that we have been ranting and railing against every other day since, well, forever; the same State that says PAGCOR is a good thing — and by their actions, the Church hierarchy seems to agree, ironically. (A way out of the funding thing in the RH Bill is to fund reproductive health programs with PAGCOR and PCSO funds, not from taxes. Surely PAGCOR money is in the purview of Congress, isnt it?)
I don’t believe the State is targeting the “belief system” of the Catholic Church, when for example it has Science as part of its public school curriculum, even though that is certainly inimical to creationism.
Not advertently at least. The State takes it upon itself to decide the common good, and this common good runs smack dab into Catholic teachings. By the way, Catholicism doesnt support ‘creationism’ — the literal 6-day creation, and a young earth. They just support the Creator.
If you have the patience to look further, the alternative rendition of history against the 4 cases you raised against infallibility may be found here and here. The topic of papal infallibility has gone on long enough in apologetic circles that I suppose we will just be ending up questioning each others sources, (as you say, the argument goes back and forth) so let me just call a truce in this area if I may. Suffice just at this point to say that Catholic teaching need not even be established as infallible for it to be *binding* on the faithful. I just hope that your post (thanks for that one) and my amateur attempts to support it would give just enough reason that Catholics do have a moral, theological and historical basis to stand by their beliefs regardless of what its detractors may label as archaic, unreasonable, hypocritical, out of touch in a secular world, or even “out of thin air”. We get so many endearing terms. In the best of hope, we pray just to be able to give people an appreciative insight where Catholics are coming from, even if they don’t agree with it, instead of them pulling hairs. It may also be helpful to understand that there are three things that Catholics consider as non-negotiables in the public arena: the protection of life in all its stages; the sanctity of the family; and the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit. That gives you an idea why you get violent reactions from the bishops on this RH bill. For those who might think that the Church should give in to popular clamor lest it become “irrelevant”, you might just realize the futility of such a call. That is equivalent to asking the local church to deny its very identity and sever its ties with Rome. The church has been considered unpopular many times, but still survives or flourishes to this day, depending on where you stand. He assured: “and behold, I will be with you always”, and so it will continue to persevere till the “end of days”. Recall that in the earliest days, reports have it that popular clamor demanded and won the release of a certain bandit named Barrabas, in the place of an innocent Man from Nazareth.
But personally, I think the plenary debates should zero-in on the prohibitive and punitive aspects of the bill. Kinda scary there, and I believe pros and cons alike should be able to establish some common ground in that area. One must look forward on the implications of this bill if it is passed in its present form containing those prohibitive and punitive provisions. At least this moves the debate beyond the contentious religion arguments, and establishes what the pro-RH camp really mean when they say “Pro-Choice” (ah, my foot…hurts). This could be a landmark case we have here, and I follow Jego’s line there. I also follow Brian’s line and see the extreme difficulty in trying to debate certain points. Lets agree to disagree on this one for now, ok?
Thanks DJB, for engaging me in this discussion. That was a good one.
As for transubstantiation…One would think there would be vaster scientific interest in such a potentially useful technological gift from God.
Thomas Aquinas has already taken care of this in the 13th century. The substance changes, that is, it won’t show up on a microscope. This just echoes BrianB’s argument. You can’t argue with official Church doctrine on scientific grounds.
Jego,
I think as you know, I regard the Catholic Church in exactly the same way I do a Non-Govt Organization (NGO). Nothing more, nothing less. A free assembly of citizens who happen to share a common belief in a body of thought and feeling we call Religion.
It is on that basis that we must evaluate whether the State has overstepped its bounds in the matter of Freedom of Speech and Expression (which is the foundation of your concerns, no?)
Likewise “Christian” as applied to individuals, is merely a label as far as the Constitution is concerned, with no more and no less rights and duties than any other citizen.
So the fact that some State policy may conflict with either a Church’s or individual’s beliefs may be approached by imagining that you substitute some other organization or individual (applying no religious test whatsoever to distinguish them) to see whether some right or freedom is violated, or duty shirked.
There is nothing special about “religious belief” as a piece of free thought. Constitutionally it enjoys equal protection–no more, no less, than art, music, entertainment, novels, noewspapers, radio programs, or book clubs, mass movements, civic societies, associations, etc.
Religion falls in with all forms of freedom of speech and expression when we are trying to decide whether the State is overstepping its bounds.
Next, why must the state decide upon the common good? Because different religions for example are likely to have deadly conflicts with each other, and there are always conflicts in the actions, opinions and beliefs of individuals and assemblies of individuals. The State upholding the Rule of Law is what keeps the peace in a democracy. Unless it is guided by a dedication to the “common good” we would surely live in endless strifes that can never be settled. Of course we are not usually too far from that Chaos anyway, but unless we want Fascism, we must live with this form of mildly ordered chaos.
It is not an abdication of duty as citizens to empower the State to act on our behalf, as long as we freely and regularly elect our leaders and representatives. It’s the only practical way of living in a society of more than a few dozen people.
Willy,
Thanks for your thoughtful ripostes. I learn the most from those who disagree with me, and this conversation has been no exception.
Next, why must the state decide upon the common good? Because different religions for example are likely to have deadly conflicts with each other, and there are always conflicts in the actions, opinions and beliefs of individuals and assemblies of individuals.
Got it, DJB. So the State is some kind of umpire and in this role, it does and it will tend to step on the toes of a minority. We then as a society would have to safeguard the rights of the minority. That’s what I think Im doing, however inept I may be at it. The fact that this minority happen to belong to the leadership of a powerful NGO makes the job more difficult, but in speaking for the rights of an unpopular minority, Id like to think Im speaking for my rights as well.
I agree with WillyJ that the debate on the RH Bill should focus on the prohibitive and punitive aspects of the bill. Try to see if the punitive aspects tend to punish people for merely practicing their faith. Try to see if certain provisions of the bill gives too much power to the State.
Jego,
I concede the RH bill appears to have those weaknesses, or overcompensation if you will, where it seeks to suppress the legitimate expression of religious beliefs and teachings as “disinformation” about the law itself. But this is not also cut and dried. Disinformation should be fought with information, unless of course someone is getting a free ride from the govt itself…
There are some overlaps with the parallel discussion ongoing on education that could open up a whole new line of discussion.
Consider the following fact: Most private schools in the Philippines that are run by religious orders usually take the Deped Curriculum and “supplement” it with religious instruction. However, in order to get a Seal of Good Housekeeping, as it were, the less famous of these religious schools, which comprise the vast majority, especially outside of Manila, always advertise the fact that they do use the Deped official curriculum as a foundation of their own, often unique mix of subjects and subject matter.
In this way they use the govt approved curriculum as a standard of education upon which they add their own stuff.
Here is a case where the notion that State may have some legitimate interest in controlling the speech (in this case advertising) of religious organizations, because while the Deped Curriculum is officially secular, the religious schools really are not offering a secular education.
Many of these private schools also receive a special kind of market subsidy from the govt through the GASTPE program, where public school students are sent to private schools on govt money to relieve congestion in certain places. I think accepting this public money requires certain forms of compliance and inhibition by the private religious schools.
far from being the source of our moral intuition, religion can yield highly problematic ethical positions, the Catholic prohibition against condom use aggravating the global AIDS epidemic the tendency of religion to decouple moral judgments from focus on real human suffering that most of the laws outlawing pornography, sodomy, and prostitution are actually intended to combat “sin” rather than “crime.”
morality and ethics can be studied, and improved, without “presupposing anything on insufficient evidence, infallibility BS, and dogmatism
@jeg
my point as stated above is that our freedom of religion also implies that our laws must not be based on religious views.
sam,
It is truly tragic that the Catholic Church would rather spouses contract STDs from their mates rather than to ‘go against nature’ and try to prevent conception using prophylactics. It is a wicked and inhumane position they’ve adopted with respect to condoms.
nashman,
Freedom of Religion is provided for in 1987 Article III Sec. 5
To the extent that religious views can legitimately influence moral behavior, it is actually impossible to demand that our laws “not be based on religious views.” We may abhor murder and rape on religious grounds, and therefore support laws against them. As long as we do not require religious tests for the exercise of civil and political rights, our motivation for adopting laws can certainly be motivated by religious views. Or non-religious views should they happen to coincide.
May I also add that our society, our very civilization, is based on religious views. We tend to denature it nowadays for political correctness, but without those religious views, we have no basis for our civilization:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The US Decaration of Independence.
“Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God?” Thomas Jefferson
Remove their only firm basis, whether we believe them or not, we are left with… nothing. Scratch that. We are left with the scientific laws of nature, wherein as blackshama says above:
We’re nothing special. Human life has as much value as chicken life. We got our ‘irrational’ belief that we are somehow special from religion.
Jeg, that we are animals (just like chickens) does not necessarily mean that human life has no value.
Yes. As much value as chicken life nga lang. Haha. Or chimp life if one prefers.
well, i don’t know… how much do folks get after shooting someone, like a journalist, an activist, or some random holdup victim along ortigas?
it’s a bit more expensive than that, methinks.
fine, that was tongue-in-cheek, but my point is that just because one professes to have religion, one may not view human life as valuable, in the same way one needs not be religious to consider human life as having value.
Maybe from the point of view an Extraterrestial. But as humans, i think we’re entitled to our own biases.
sorry, 5:18 was for jeg.
Of course jester, although beside the point. What I was getting at is that there is no rational basis for believing we are anything special as far as science is concerned, wherein we’re just a part of nature, like trees, chimps, and chickens are, Copernican Principle and all that (which I think is poppycock, by the way — there is no scientific basis to conclude that).
Our basis for our being special is non-rational.
Same point to cvj. Our basis for claiming our ’specialness’ is non-rational if we’re going by science.
Jeg, claiming that there is nothing special about humans is not the same as claiming that we have no value. We just have to locate that value on something other than being children of God.
Of course. Like I said, we have value, although as much value as chimps, chickens, and trees.
We just have to locate that value on something other than being children of God.
Like what, for instance?
Our shared humanity.
Yes, that indeed sounds like a bias. And if you dont mind my saying so, non-rational. For what objective value does a shared anything give to us as humans?
But be that as it may, our civilization was not founded on our shared humanity. (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their shared humanity with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”) The ’shared humanity’ is mostly a 20th century secularization thing; maybe part of the evolution of society away from a hierarchical approach to religion (good luck). Mind you Im not knocking it. It could work, maybe. It’s just that it wasnt the historical basis of our society.
Jeg, i think it is rational to value human life more than chicken life because i’m a human being. If i as a human being, i valued chicken life more than human life, then that would be non-rational. As to not having an ‘objective’ criteria, that is less of a concern since values are by definition dependent on the point of view of Subjects like you and me.
Just like DJB, i consider religion as scaffolding that can be removed once it has served its purpose…
…what is debatable is whether we’ve reached such a stage or whether we’re capable of doing so.
Jeg, i think it is rational to value human life more than chicken life because i’m a human being.
Yes, it is, as you say, a bias. Science, what some people hope to replace religion one day, says we can’t conclude that. In fact, if Dawkins et al. are to be believed, we’re nothing but a gene’s idea for making more copies of itself. Meat puppets, whose strings are being pulled by the selfish genes, the true immortals, as he wrote in his book, The Selfish Gene.
…what is debatable is whether we’ve reached such a stage or whether we’re capable of doing so.
Oh we’re capable of course. What is really debatable is whether or not it is wise to do so.
Jeg, that human beings are receptacles for ‘Selfish’ Genes is not relevant to valuing human life in the same manner that our having evolved from primates is not relevant to valuing human life. For example, knowing that you, DJB or even my Mom is descended from primates does not change my view of your value as human beings. Neither does it change my view my own worth. Why should it?
Jeg,
It is true we are “just” animals (specifically mammalian, hominids) and that religion aggrandizes us with an alleged immortal soul (while other living creatures have souls that die with their corporeal hull!). This claim is irrational because we have never found any evidence for it.
But I’m not sure about your assertion that
If we go by pure science there is the matter of evolution, which has given us greater fitness for survival than chickens, chimps or trees, over which we clearly hold scientific, technological and intellectual superiority. We can destroy them as well as protect them.
We are all made by the same laws of nature, but chickens, chimps and trees unable to know those laws, to manipulate them, explain them, as well as wonder WHY there should be laws at all. We are simply better evolved than they are. There is great value in that, which a purely scientific attitude would confirm.
What is perhaps irrational is the idea that we derive our exceptional place because a Universal Supervisor designated and chose us to be so.
I believe that morality is actually a human instinct that comes from being more fitly evolved, that our ancestors had a moral sense BEFORE they invented theology to try and explain it. God is the wrong explanation for what we all sense is innate in us. Morality, altruism, cooperation, tolerance, all the motherhood and apple pie stuff, are to me actually the vestiges of successful survival strategies, “instinct” instilled in us as a special sixth sense (of right and wrong) by the agency of the need to survive. We are good because we ARE human, and would not have gotten here if we had been bad!
God is not the explanation, though for most of human history, God was the best explanation we could come up with.
Now Science comes up with an even stranger explanation than God: the immortality of genes evolving in time, being passed down from generation to generation of phenotype, largely intact though slowly evolving…towards what???
^ Towards nothing. Evolution doesn’t have an ultimate purpose.
I agree with missingpoints. There is no particular direction to evolution. It’s just a matter of living systems adapting to its environment. Evolution is the side effect.
Purpose requires consciousness, so yes, the present orthodoxy in evolutionary science says the observed process is “blind watchmaking”.
But direction? Hang on folks. There is a direction from the simple to the complex, UP Mount Improbable as Dawkins put both metaphors. Indeed, we could make the leap: from nonliving to life. So far, we have only one data point: Earth. But that could change and lots of scientists are working hard on it (Seti, the interplanetary probes).
The hypothesis is that LIFE is an “emergent property” of the Universe, order that arises out of Chaos in a perfectly natural way.
I think it’s very exciting because…if a grapefruit sized brain like ours can achieve consciousness, why not the grander structures of the Universe, which structure we do not actually know, nor even now, what it is mostly made up of.
God is a boring nonmystery. Science is stranger than Religion, as Man is infinitely more interesting than chickens, chimps or trees (which aren’t bad either, of course!)
If we go by pure science there is the matter of evolution, which has given us greater fitness for survival than chickens, chimps or trees, over which we clearly hold scientific, technological and intellectual superiority. We can destroy them as well as protect them.
From a scientific point of view, DJB, that’s bias. Pro-human bias. If youre basing our superiority on our fitness, take a look at bacteria and viruses. Theyve been around longer than we are and we’re still losing the fight against them. Intellectual, scientific, and technological superiority are meaningless too in purely scientific terms. ‘Superiority’ in science, particularly in biology, is measured in your ability to replicate and not destroy yourself. We’ve done a good job or replicating, but in the same manner, we’ve done an excellent job of destroying our environment (and ourselves) as well instead of living with it. That isnt superiority as far as science is concerned. That’s only humanist bias.
What is perhaps irrational is the idea that we derive our exceptional place because a Universal Supervisor designated and chose us to be so.
Which was my point. But there is no rational way to arrive at our exceptional place. Science can’t do it. If one thinks Science can prove that we’re exceptional, he is seriously deluded. In fact Science says the opposite.
We are all made by the same laws of nature, but chickens, chimps and trees unable to know those laws, to manipulate them, explain them, as well as wonder WHY there should be laws at all.
An assumption based on a pro-human bias. We simply dont know. Trees probably cant explain anything to us in a language we understand, but they know enough about nature to survive longer than we have. (Plants communicate with each other chemically. I dont remember the study but if a plant senses that the next plant is a ’sibling’ it doesnt aggressively spread its roots. Things like that. Assuming that a creature is dumb simply because it can’t speak or write English and use the internet is humanist bias.)
I believe that morality is actually a human instinct that comes from being more fitly evolved, that our ancestors had a moral sense BEFORE they invented theology to try and explain it.
Yes it *IS* a belief, DJB. Because it hasnt been scientifically shown that that is the case. Just like a God is a belief that hasnt been scientifically shown. You can arrive at either conclusion rationally, but not empirically. Unfortunately, Science only recognizes the empirical route.
The thread might have turned in a different direction but I believe our being ‘exceptional’ is at the heart of the Catholic stand on birth control. Im trying to show that ’scientific evidence’ for our being exceptional just isnt there. All there is is bias. It’s therefore a battle between two non-rational views.
Jeg,
The Catholic church’s reason for believing we are exceptional may be wrong in our view, but that doesn’t mean we are not exceptional or even superior. I don’t like these words anyway, because it does not convey my meaning. We are merely the most evolved of the creatures on earth and technological capability, including culture, “artificial memory” etc. have some scientific value. It is when we come to think that we are the most evolved in the whole Universe, or ever could be that Religion gets off the train.
All forms of music are music, but there is muzak and then there is Mozart.
All forms of transportation get you from point A to point B, but compared to a tricycle, a Mercedes Benz is clearly superior (without looking down of trike drivers or anything).
Lookit, the fact that we reject Religion as an answer or explanation to the mysteries that confront us, does not make those mysteries go away, nor does it give us any comfort at all that not even Science has adequate answers or questions. We may prefer its methods, as of course I do, but it does not lessen my chagrin over how far we have to go.
What you call “pro human bias” I prefer to regard as Good Taste and appreciation of evolution’s products, through no particular merit of our own or the will of a God created in our image.
What such products as we, are entitled to, as a result of this bias or discrimination or judgment, is perhaps another matter.
BTW, regarding altruism having evolutionary adaptive value — there is evidence for the supporting the hypothesis in the literature.
It’s an important point that is also being made by the militant atheists (the Dawkinsians!) because it proves that morality is innate in us in the evolutionary sense, and not writ on stone tablets for promulgation by Moses.
I get what you mean, DJB. But even then, our standards for judging superiority are too species-centric. We may like Mozart but only because we’re human. Why are we superior? Because we’re human. It’s question begging. Good taste is good taste because it’s good taste to humans. Naturally, as cvj mentioned it is ‘rational’ for us to think that our life has superior value to those of a chicken because they dont have a Mozart.
BTW, regarding altruism having evolutionary adaptive value — there is evidence for the supporting the hypothesis in the literature.
Id like to think, because Im human and have a humanist bias, that altruism in the selfish gene sense, is different from morality, which is a function of our will. There is ample evidence for altruism in nature, but as to the link between altruism and morality, what we have in the literature are explanations, not evidence. Rational explanations, mind you, based on the existing orthodoxy, but science demands evidence as well as rational explanations. Altruism in nature is limited to the altruist’s gene pool. Human morality on the other hand extends to those not in your gene pool, including those of your enemy, and indeed even other species. Recognizing the morality that even your enemy has rights you should defend can probably be squeezed out of natural altruism if you try hard enough.
Jeg, doesn’t humanity belong to one gene pool? After all, everyone can trace their origins to the same father 2,000 generations ago. (or does that count as ‘trying hard enough’?)
You can go further. One of the foundations of neo-darwinism is universal common descent, that is, we all are descended from a single replicator. Ergo, saving the forests, saving the whales, and loving our enemies is all perfectly Darwinian.
[Genuflects]
Jeg, that’s what the DNA-evidence tells us, we’re all related (although i won’t go so far as make a religion out of evolution).
Folks there’s no two ways about it. The Roman Catholic Church must EXCOMMUNICATE every nominal Catholic who supports the Reproductive Health Bill, if it is to be consistent with its strident claims that intentionally preventing conception is a grave sin against God and Nature, and a gross violation of an infallible doctrine of the Church.
“Let them be ANATHEMA!” is the standard exorcistic formula.
Many have noted the presence of greater and greater LAXITY in the Church (and of course I wholeheartedly encourage it!) but
Mary Racelis over at Newsbreak is wrong: you can’t BE a devout Catholic and support modern birth control. So either the Church reforms its irreformable teaching, or it expels millions of heretic and mortal-sinning Filipinos.
DJB, it would take a lot more to get excommunicated. As Roman Catholics, we’re comfortable holding two contradictory sets of beliefs simultaneously.
It would be interesting at least. Maybe the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines could start initiating excommunication procedures against prominent Catholics. If I remember correctly, they are entitled to a trial wherein a lawyer (Canon Law) defends them before a tribunal.
It is a complicated process, all I know is that the Church rarely uses this extreme form of ecclesiastical discipline. The bishops prefer pastoral guidance instead of excommunicating people left and right. Generally, it is used on public influential figures but mostly on persons of church authority like clergy who propagate heresy. However, some acts merit automatic excommunication. Physically assaulting the Pope, some forms of sacrilege, and willfully procuring an abortion with full knowledge and consent, are some of those. There are also less extreme disciplines like refusing communion. Note that in these instances, pastoral guidance is the ulterior intention. I’m sure most of you heard of Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the US Congress. She claims to be a devout, ardent practising Catholic yet she is patently pro-abortion in her advocacy. The US bishops roundly admonished her , although her bishop still preferred a private pastoral discussion instead of applying church discipline. Charity foremost. Excommunication a last resort. Thankfully, burning at the stake went out a long time ago, although the prospect of eternal fire is more gruesome.
Let us not forget the most famous excommunicant in Philippine History: JOSE RIZAL, the very First Filipino (and the 95% of the leaders of the Katipunan who were secretly Masons). The CBCP, as late as 1990, reaffirmed the automatic excommunication of such heretics.
I dare them to be morally and doctrinally consistent. After using words like murder and unnatural and sinful confounding abortion with contraception, it’s the height of laxity that is the most telling about their true, personal convictions.
This is clearly institutional hubris enforced by an inhumane patriarchal autarchy of the Roman Pontiff.
They need to walk their talk or face increasing loss of credibility. Now even the JIL and INC appears more genuine and earnest than the RCC.
DJB,
Admittedly, there appears to be some laxity. The canon law is quite complicated, that is why there are experts dealing in this area. We can say its gravely sinful conduct, but we also talk about obstinacy and persistency in manifest grave sin, willful, and with full knowledge. It is not a cut and dried affair as it requires a judgment of the interior disposition of another. Primacy of conscience may lead one to do wrong. Even when it might appear on the outside to be an “open and shut” case of grave sin, judgment is God’s. You can be sure the bishops are having difficulties.
Willy,
What could be more “manifest”, “willful” and done “with full knowledge” than to debate, support and PASS a law that approves, encourages, and formally implements actions and programs for millions of the Faithful which the Church and the Pope have solemnly and formally declared to be grave sins against God and Nature?
Are not the interior dispositions of all who are supporting the bill and ready to put the Constitution and the Law behind its execution cut and dried, open and shut?
The bishops are not having the same kind of difficulties the Faithful are, and those like me who want to preserve Freedom of Religion, including that of the Catholic Church when it is they who manifest a sinful disregard for the Truth, for humanity, and for Reason, which suffuses the teaching coldly and rhetorically, but not honestly and forthrightly as we deserve from the self-appointed shepherds?
There lies the big difference, DBJ. We may look at the same ends but sorely differ in the means to achieve it. When the church says “intrinsically evil”, it refers to the act in and of itself, regardless of the end and circumstances. Its the natural law. Also, one may not justify evil when you claim good will come out of it. You may be surprised that judging morality from the church’s point view is thoroughly grounded in objective evaluation. Relativists rightly find goodness in the integrity of conscience, but they grossly overlook the need to evaluate what we do out of conscience and how we live. This simplistic description is favored by many in society today who praise people for following conscience but who refuse to measure the resulting activity — that each of us is considerably free from objective evaluation. I wonder how many of dissenting Catholics, for example, have carefully read Humanae Vitae with a charitable disposition, much less took the trouble to read it at all? Have they carefully discerned their areas of disagreement with each point therein? Allow me to state my personal appreciation of its theological, philosophical, rational and prophetic views. Let me say it is a beautiful document, thoroughly consistent and edifying. Please read it again (I assume you already did). This time with feeling.
I also try to empathize with the valid concerns of the pro-RH camp. It is sad that people throw mud at each other (both camps, I’m sure) when we should all join hands (regardless of affiliation) in uplifting our poor country.
Willy,
There was a time when the Catholic Church WAS the government in the Philippines. That theocracy has been overthrown and discredited. But the Church itself has survived. Yet it is consistent in its view that those who disobey her in this and other matters will burn in the eternal fires of hell. And she says so now as she said so then. We cannot therefore blame those Filipinos who are conscious of this history who now reject the Church as having any kind of moral leadership or ascendancy. True, most of them have not bothered to delve into the theological bowels of the Church’s rationalizations of its position. The Church is NOT impeccable in matters political, economic or sexual (viz the disgusting scandals that have engulfed Bishops!). Most human beings are not by nature into the study of theology “with feeling”, or if they are, their feelings are necessarily about the past and what they know to be true, not the abstractions of spiritualists and supernaturalists.
Humanae Vitae, beautiful as its logical structure and doctrines are to some, does not resonate with ordinary people because it is essentially a curse against things they consider to be beautiful, like sex and sexual love, like free will and conscience, like children wanted and not accidental. IT does not approach humanity with a charitable disposition. To many it is Padre Damaso giving a stentorian sermon, with his hairy legs quite visible.
It is too much to demand of people to give a purely intellectual allegiance to the infallibility of holy men, when they have acted with cruelty, injustice, lust, greed and perfidy. And now to speak of human matters that they personally know nothing about with such a tone of moral superiority. It is simply impossible even for men with charity in their hearts. The best that can be expected is pity, if only to avoid disdain.
It is a common misconception that Theology exists in a vacuum devoid of or at least indifferent to reason. Faith and Reason in fact work together, as there is a profound unity and harmony between the two. Faith and Reason although distinct, are not contradictory as Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio expounds.
Rationalism rejects the exigencies of faith, for it refuses to acknowledge that there is any truth beyond what the human intellect can discover for itself. Rationalism delights in the intellect’s capacity to know truths so much that it denies even the possibility that there should be any truths above the human intellect. Fideism, seeing rationalism’s exaggeration of the human intellect and recognising the widespread tendency of fallen man to fall into error, imposes a mistrust of the human intellect. Fideism goes so far as to deny that the human intellect can know any truth whatsoever without Divine revelation.
These are the two extremes regarding the intellect’s relation to natural and supernatural truths. It is in the teaching of St. Thomas that we see the refutation of these errors, preserving both the certitude of truths known by reason alone and the certitude of faith. Faith and reason are not at all contradictory: they are complementary.
Both faith and reason attain truth - reason grasps natural truths and supernatural faith knows supernatural truths. Reason sees, faith believes, but what is seen or believed is the truth. The intellect is ordered towards truth. No one wants to be deceived. That is why we reason about things: to get to the truth. Reasoning is not an end in itself: it is the means. We reason for the sake of arriving at true conclusions, conclusions which are contained virtually in the principles.
Indeed many excesses were made in the name of religion, but is it the fault of religion itself? The Magisterium reflects a living tradition spanning thousands of years of church history. You have the likes of St Augustine, St Francis of Assisi, St Vincent DePaul, Mother Teresa in that long history. Yes, you also have the likes of Padre Damaso. Christ never promised to fill his Church only with impeccable people, though He said I will be with you *always* and will send the *spirit of truth* to guide His church to the end of days. We trust in that.
PS.
Isn’t evolution also a “religion”, so to speak?
I have never believed that theology is bereft of, or even lacking in Reason. Indeed, the crafts of logic and rhetoric were perfected by theologians, mainly Christian and Jewish theologians.
Many of my own writings express the observation that Science evolved out of Religion.
But what religion and theology are missing which Science has and which made it superior to them, in my opinion is its honest devotion to evidence, observation, experimentation and the scientific method. So even as Science inherits the logical and rhetorical tools of Religion, it evolves to higher state of intelligence by adopting the attitude of accepting only as valid hypotheses those that can be falsified. Whereas Religion has lost its way with such profound vanities and self-aggrandizement as infallibility and dogma.
Evolutionary science is indeed a “religion”–but only in the sense that homo sapiens is also a hominid like Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal.
So even as Science inherits the logical and rhetorical tools of Religion, it evolves to higher state of intelligence by adopting the attitude of accepting only as valid hypotheses those that can be falsified.”
Maybe you meant “those that cannot be falsified”? The reason I ask is that I just remembered this recent news about the HAdron Collider Project. The scientists of evolution had to test the Big Bang theory and other theories to answer the big questions of the foundation of the universe, of evolution. So they had to test since they are not 100% sure what happened. Can anyone be absolutely sure? Of course a true scientist has to rely on what is observable by the human senses. But nobody was there eons ago, so nobody observed what happened. Evolutionary science is also built on a system of beliefs of “things unseen”.
Sorry for jumping on so late in the debate. My, what a lively entry! At any rate, DJB (my apologies if that is not your preferred form of address), you wrote that:
Your perception of the Church in modern society is valid, but I would like to point out another essential similarity between churches and NGOs. Both churches and NGOs, if they are true to their mandate or charter, actively work for their own obsolescence. They initiate programs and structures that help bring about a wonderful future in which organizations such as they are no longer necessary. As I am, embarrassingly, grossly uninformed regarding politics, I would like to ask: could this also be applied to government, or am I wasting my time pursuing this line of inquiry? I raise this point merely to explore whether the tension between Church and State stems from a basic incompatibility between these two institutions.
Also, you wrote that:
Do you consider Science’s “honest devotion to evidence, observation, experimentation and the scientific method” to be the standard by which truth is measured? What makes these methods such reliable indicators of truth? Their honesty, or their method?
Again, fascinating reading. Forgive my ignorance on many matters, and keep on writing. Thanks!
[John, with apologies to DJB] One of the most valid criticisms against government programs (or departments), as opposed to the free market, is that once a government initiative is established, it becomes self-perpetuating which is why bureacracies grow.
It’s not because of some evil intent or incompetence on the part of the bureacrats (although evil intent or incompetence may be there as well). That’s just how it is with organizations (whether in the public or private sector), they become their own reason for being. One way to counter this tendency is to program obsolescence. For the Church, i believe it’s programmed itself to exist until the Second Coming.
Marx envisioned a time when the State will just ‘wither away’ when Communism is achieved, which is so far a failed prophecy. I personally find it amusing that free market ideologues have bought into Marx’s Utopian Vision (although via the free market and not the socialist route).
willy, john,
We are all late to the party…but we can always enjoy the company!
first to willy: I meant what I said that scientific hypotheses are mainly distinguished by their essential ability to be proven wrong (falsifiability). Somewhat weaker and less courageous are hypotheses that can be proven to be right (verifiability). Weakest and worst of all are hypotheses that can be neither proven wrong OR right. For example, matters of infallible teaching are usually of this sort. How for example can it proven false or true that Mary the Mother of God was born without original sin (immaculate conception) or that Jesus was born of a virgin (and not that some young woman lied!). these claims are largely unassailable matters of pure faith. It doesn’t mean of course that faith plays no role in science. I know there were dinosaurs long before man because authorities that I have faith in say there is evidence in the fossil record and in radiocarbon dating tests that prove this to be true (or falsify the “null” hypothesis that Man and Dinosaurs coexisted in the same time period). Of course, I’ve never seen a fossil for real, nor done the mass spectrometer tests measuring the relative abundance of carbon 13 and 12 to use as a dating clock, but in principle I could and have no reasonable doubt that those authorities are right. Sound familiar? But apply the same thing to any infallible teaching and one finds that the doctrine is unassailable by empirical tests, personally done or not. When some hypothesis cannot be falsified, our faith in its truth or accuracy increases, but NEVER do we say it is unfalsifiable because new evidence is always being discovered about all scientific hypotheses. In fact that is what most scientists do: they try to disprove the present orthodoxy in order to refine or revise or even revolutionize it.
What Science and Religion have in common, like hominids have the same body form and organs, are Logic, Rhetoric, Reason. But Religion has dispensed with the need for evidence, and so that is why it has gradually lost most of its ability to explain anything in the natural world. It escapes into an unfalsifiable, unverifiable supernatural world of its own making, then applies all the tools of Aristotle, Aquinas, et al. Which leads to the question John raises about “honesty” and “method”. I think in general both theologian and scientists are “honest” at least the good ones, since they generally adhere to Aristotleian logic, which I like to call arithmetic.
But their grand difference lies in the scientific method or its absence. The kind of hypotheses each considers valid are vastly different in their construction, premises and assumptions. One relies on falsifiability and/or verifiability of its “doctrines” and “propositions” and “theorems”, the other relies on pure faith in an infallible omniscient, generally of Italian origin.
At one time the Catholic Church was like the the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left. It WAS the government in a theocratic state. This is worse than monarchy, and it degenerated into a corrupt, simoniac patriarchy that Jose Rizal so dramatically exposed and which the Americans encountered here with great Protestant disgust. We are still recovering from the centuries in a Spanish Convent followed by 50 in Hollywood.
We are still at the difficult labor of disestablishing the Catholic Taliban or Umma, if you will.
cvj,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. As you might have guessed, I’m not very familiar with sociopolitical theory, and I thoroughly enjoyed your insights on how organizations evolve and behave. I believe I e