tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post2653076551638651272..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: 5. True Union (3)Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-17673721585934170062007-11-10T11:22:00.000-05:002007-11-10T11:22:00.000-05:00I quote Mr Allen: "Tobias, one would think from yo...I quote Mr Allen: "Tobias, one would think from your essay that your opponents' problem is that we cling to that idea that the east wind is still intervening in conception."<BR/><BR/>But that's precisely the problem. You've disavowed the faulty Aristotelian and Thomistic pseudoscience in which your position originated, but you wish to maintain your position all the same. It's a matter of eating your cake and having it too: indeed, your position would be more internally consistent - and respectable - if you _did_ accept the pseudoscience.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00324636915206892169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-69204104967833165122007-10-27T11:02:00.000-05:002007-10-27T11:02:00.000-05:00This discussion seems intendedly more philosophica...This discussion seems intendedly more philosophical than biological, but I'm surprised that some striking discoveries of biology haven't figured more prominently -- given the "natural law" preoccupations of the Romanists.<BR/><BR/>I refer to the discovery that all human beings begin in female form, and some of them, those with XY chromosomes, are altered in development by hormonal action in a masculine direction. (Some texts say that homosexual males have been "incompletely masculinized," but in fact, there is no Platonic male ideal they are trying to emulate -- each person develops as they develop, and if they are functional, they live.) God didn't create human beings male and female; God created female, male, and everything between (including intersex).<BR/><BR/>Biology also shows that females carry the XX chromosome and males the XY, with the Y being a one-legged X. It's been found that females are genetically sturdier because they have two Xs as backup -- males, lacking one leg of one X, have only the resources of their one complete X. So St. Thomas was wrong -- it is the male who is lacking.<BR/><BR/>Mythologically, then, God created Woman, and seeing it wasn't good for her to be alone, gave her the Man to help and protect her and her children. But the Man, using the strength and imagination he was given for his assigned task, turned rather to domination and control. As the tribe increased, God sent individuals who would stand outside the system of male domination and mate seeking, who could contribute to the welfare of the group as a whole, who could be friends to both male and female without sexual or hierarchical tension, and who, in fact, have been the major creators of the tribe's stories (myths) and songs. Procreation continues the tribe; it is the arts that make us human.<BR/><BR/>Mudduck (as I am often called on the Web), the lawfully wedded husband of garydasein.Gary Paul Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12941698776126034822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-43978450805618937752007-10-24T08:04:00.000-05:002007-10-24T08:04:00.000-05:00Fr Michael,I would accept your word for what RCC m...Fr Michael,<BR/><BR/>I would accept your word for what RCC moral theology says if you could provide a reference. Surely the traditional view on sexuality and procreation, at least since St Augustine, held that every sexual act was to some extent tainted by original sin --- as, indeed, in Augustine's system, it is by means of procreation that original sin is transmitted. The traditional view, then, was that sexuality and procreation itself partook "of the nature of sin." (This made it into the Anglican tradition via Cranmer's being heavily influenced by Augustine.) While it is true that the current edition of the catechism has played down this element in the tradition, you can find it amply articulated in earlier writings, in which procreation, far from being a moral good, is the means of the transmission of original sin. <BR/><BR/>As I said earlier, I do not emphasize the doctrine of Original Sin in my own thinking, though I acknowledge it's existence. I would prefer to see procreation as a moral neutral in itself, and sexuality similarly -- that is, the moral value lies in the context, the intent, and the actors -- which, I think, is the actual teaching of most contemporary ethicists, both within and outside the RCC. Same-sexuality is precisely condemned, in this case, because of the actors; birth control because of the intent; etc.<BR/><BR/>I don't know that the RCC teaches that "eating is a moral good" that can be used for ill. It seems to me, regardless of what Rome teaches, that it is rather a moral neutral, that can be well or ill used. There is more to morality than simple acts divorced from their context.<BR/><BR/>That being said, the comments here have gone rather off the thread with wanderings into the malfeasance of medieval clergy and the response of Urban II! <BR/><BR/>I think I'm going to ask that we draw the other conversations to a close, and if there is nothing more to say about symbolism, move on. Thanks for the input and thoughts.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-10568674826396004612007-10-24T06:06:00.000-05:002007-10-24T06:06:00.000-05:00Erika, do I understand correctly that the parents ...Erika, do I understand correctly that the parents claim that there is something immoral about accepting the girl because she was conceived in an adulterous relationship that their son entered into? Seems to me tht if they really believe in shunnng sinners they've missed the obvious target. And if their priest truly believes the child culpable because of the sins of her parents, I can only say that the infallibility of priests is not an article of faith (nor, I should add, the infallibility of pontificating laity on the web).<BR/><BR/>Seriously, if there is any imputation of fault to illegitimate children, I'd be interested in knowing the source. I haven't found any, other than the old impediment to ordination, which originated, I think, with Urban II in the eleventh century, which would have been directed against the foundation of ecclesiatical dynasties by supposedly celibate clerics, not against illegitimacy per se. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can liven up the Thanksgiving dinner conversation this fall by asking these Catholic parents where exactly in scripture or tradition is it established that a father may be excused from his paternal responsibilities so long as he enters into them by means of adultery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-77112775590157966952007-10-23T22:39:00.000-05:002007-10-23T22:39:00.000-05:00Perhaps we are fighting over nomenclature here.In ...Perhaps we are fighting over nomenclature here.<BR/><BR/>In RCC moral theology the fact that a moral good can be perverted to evil doesn't make the specific good in general morally neutral.<BR/><BR/>To give a simple example outside of the present topic, eating is a moral good, even though gluttony is a capital sin.<BR/><BR/>To apply this line of thought to the present argument, procreation can be considered a moral good (as opposed to morally neutral) even though some conceptions occur in immoral acts such as rape and illegitimacy.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to take a break here and reread <BR/><BR/>I'm going to reread the earlier posts of Fr. Tobias since I don't seem to understand how he so easily separates procreation, sexuality, and marriage.<BR/><BR/>God bless, FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-50949918711788723632007-10-23T17:23:00.000-05:002007-10-23T17:23:00.000-05:00Rick"But the problem, I think, wasn't some inheren...Rick<BR/>"But the problem, I think, wasn't some inherent problem with illegitimacy, but a problem with church corruption"<BR/><BR/>if we're staying off topic...<BR/>whatever its origins, it certainly had a huge influence on the church.<BR/>In my own family there is an illetigimate child conceived between a married father and a woman he met briefly. The father's wife immediately made friends with the woman and introduced the child to her children who treat her has their natural sister. The father's catholic parents to date refuse to accept the child, saying that their priest agrees that the girl cannot be accepted because her conception was immoral.<BR/><BR/>Whatever you may think of this - the view itself is surprisingly common still.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-35638314285239528322007-10-23T14:22:00.000-05:002007-10-23T14:22:00.000-05:00"I don't know how you would reconcile this with th..."I don't know how you would reconcile this with the traditional Roman Catholic prohibition of ordination of a child conceived out of wedlock."<BR/><BR/>I don't know for certain, but would guess that that prohibition came out of the Gregorian reform, to keep prelates who couldn't quite keep their vows from putting their children into rich livings. Didn't always work, of course--see Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia.<BR/><BR/>But the problem, I think, wasn't some inherent problem with illegitimacy, but a problem with church corruption, addressed with a very broad remedy. But it's a historical question that'd be interesing to check on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-26165130091744971122007-10-23T11:01:00.000-05:002007-10-23T11:01:00.000-05:00Rick"There is certainly no compassion in finding a...Rick<BR/>"There is certainly no compassion in finding anything horrifying about her very existence."<BR/><BR/>I maintain that her mother must have been the most extraordinary woman if she was able to give her daughter such a positive sense of identity.<BR/><BR/>None of us should find anything horrifying about the daughter's existence, but for the mother to find it not in the least horrifying requires a moral strength, a faith and a deep love that are truly rare and definitely not the norm for pregnancies resulting from rape.<BR/><BR/>But I'm off topic, sorry!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-4140755183159057852007-10-23T08:41:00.000-05:002007-10-23T08:41:00.000-05:00Fr Michael, and Rick,I do think you are both conti...Fr Michael, and Rick,<BR/>I do think you are both continuing to confuse and confound procreation and birth. They are really two entirely different things, though obviously related. I have not suggested that the birth of a human being is anything other than a moral good (although I note the testimony of Job and Jesus to the contrary). I don't know how you would reconcile this with the traditional Roman Catholic prohibition of ordination of a child conceived out of wedlock. (I think that rule may have been changed in the new code.) But I see each human being as supremely valuable, not in their procreation, but in their being. And I have never suggested otherwise.<BR/><BR/>But the act of procreation itself, when carried out in a circumstance of rape or incest cannot be conceived as a moral good. Again, I would welcome a citation in support of this assertion. To me it seems to be entirely wrong, from a moral perspective, and derive from an "ends justifies the means" sort of ethic.<BR/><BR/>I realize procreation is a major concern for Roman Catholics. But I think I have made my primary point in the earlier article, to wit: procreation is not inseparable from sexuality. The two are separable by nature, or by design (even without the use of artificial means). Marriage does not require procreation for its licitness, that is, the ability to procreate is not required for marriage. This is, I think, consistent even with current RC teaching. I can assure you it is consistent with Anglican teaching.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-86616338070050427142007-10-23T05:26:00.000-05:002007-10-23T05:26:00.000-05:00"...this sort of statement shows just what is wron..."...this sort of statement shows just what is wrong with convoluted theology done in the rarefied echelons of accademia."<BR/><BR/>It wasn't my statement, but I have to say that the statement is hardly theoretical to many.<BR/><BR/>I once knew a young woman who was conceived through a violent rape. For her this was a very important affirmation of Catholic teaching, one that she talked about, that her own coming-into-existence, though the result of a terrible crime, was in itself a good thing, and that her life was not somehow "morally neutral."<BR/><BR/>There is certainly no compassion in finding anything horrifying about her very existence. And she found very appealing the notion of a God whose compassion didn't impute to her the guilt or penalty of the terrible way she came to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-71104131189446797402007-10-22T16:47:00.000-05:002007-10-22T16:47:00.000-05:00I see Rick Allen is back in the conversation. Exc...I see Rick Allen is back in the conversation. Excellent.<BR/><BR/> The conflation of conception and childbirth made here under the term "procreation" is not how I would morally address the issue.<BR/><BR/> Rape is an intrinsically evil act. <BR/><BR/> Fornication is an intrinsically evil act.<BR/><BR/> Childbirth is a moral good, even if the act of fertilization that started the process of pregnancy was evil. <BR/><BR/> Illegitimate births are situation I encounter all the time in my particular pastoral work. In Catholic sub-cultures where illegitimacy is high (e.g. U.S. Hispanics) we make this distinction all the time: it is sinful to have sex outside of marriage, but it is good to bring the resulting baby to term.<BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-76870509391759168862007-10-22T11:41:00.000-05:002007-10-22T11:41:00.000-05:00I'm really with you on this Erika, and I that this...I'm really with you on this Erika, and I that this is at the outer edge of possibility. I'm speaking here from my hope that a child born of rape would not be abandoned or burdened with the wrong of which she or he is innocent. My hope that good can come out of wrong remains, though it doesn't make the wrong itself good. I should have phrased my statement more clearly -- to clarify that it is the child who might be seen as good, not the act of forced procreation by which the child came to be. This is fundamentally why I disagree with the position that procreation is a moral good in itself. Rape is always wrong, and that it can lead to unwanted procreation makes it worse, not better. The child her or himself, though, is as a human person to be valued as good, and not blamed for the rapist's crime. Sorry I wasn't clearer.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-69188334059021800132007-10-22T11:18:00.000-05:002007-10-22T11:18:00.000-05:00"Thus one might regard a birth from even a rape as..."Thus one might regard a birth from even a rape as being a kind of felix culpa."<BR/><BR/>To someone firmly grounded in normal life and faith, and only interested in theology as a hobby, this sort of statement shows just what is wrong with convoluted theology done in the rarefied echelons of accademia.<BR/><BR/>The logic is there, I grant you. But this is just the kind of view that has led the (celibate male dominated) RC church to be seen as hostile to women, lacking compassion and lacking any understanding of the true horror of the birth of a baby whose whole existence is a daily reminder of a rape. The resulting God espoused by the church is not very appealing.<BR/><BR/>The rape can be survived, the baby even accepted eventually. And, if the woman is truly extraordinary, she may also love the child without resentment. But "felix" culpa?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-48824418389125680472007-10-22T09:19:00.000-05:002007-10-22T09:19:00.000-05:00Dear Rick,Yes, I think that is certainly the direc...Dear Rick,<BR/>Yes, I think that is certainly the direction John Paul II was heading. It is problematical, still, especially when language about "creation" comes to play -- since only God is creator, and the parents are at best the agents. Still, I think the pope is clearly thinking about Adam and Eve here -- and thus procreation within the context of the primeval marriage.<BR/><BR/>So while I agree that each human life is of supreme value, that does not necessarily mean that the act of procreation that leads to that life is in and of itself "good." I think, rather, that it is clear that a process in itself bad can sometimes lead to a good result. Thus one might regard a birth from even a rape as being a kind of <I>felix culpa</I>. <BR/><BR/>On the other side lies the recognition that illegitimacy was held to be an impediment to ordination; as it was to participation in the congregation of Israel. (Dt 23:2) This does seem to reflect on the nature of the procreation in question. Clearly the act of procreation itself can be a moral "evil" -- and thus at best morally neutral in and of itself.<BR/><BR/>Finally, even in speaking of the "good" of the human being in birth, it was said of at least one, "it would have been better had he never been born."<BR/><BR/>So I will stand by my statement that procreation is not a natural moral good, but rather a moral neutral.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-64345935991023646552007-10-21T22:54:00.000-05:002007-10-21T22:54:00.000-05:00"I think you are mistaken if you are saying that t..."I think you are mistaken if you are saying that the RCC holds procreation in itself to have a moral value or to be a "natural good."<BR/><BR/>There is perhaps this from JPII's encyclical The Gospel of Life:<BR/><BR/>"Aware that God has intervened, Eve exclaims: "I have begotten a man with the help of the Lord" (Gen 4:1). In procreation therefore, through the communication of life from parents to child, God's own image and likeness is transmitted, thanks to the creation of the immortal soul."<BR/><BR/>It is indeed a tragedy when a child is born out of wedlock, from rape or incest, when the child is deprived of that which he or she has a right to, loving and caring parents. But that does not make the child's life any less an inherent good, an image of God in the world, a human life of inestimable value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-49498568317951118912007-10-19T18:19:00.000-05:002007-10-19T18:19:00.000-05:00Fr. Michael,I think you are mistaken if you are sa...Fr. Michael,<BR/><BR/>I think you are mistaken if you are saying that the RCC holds procreation <I>in itself</I> to have a moral value or to be a "natural good." It is only a moral good in relation to the context of the relationship in which it takes place. Thus, as itself, it has no moral value -- but it can be a blessing in a faithful relationship, and a tragedy in a case of rape or incest. Can you present a citation from the Catechism that shows otherwise? I think you will find that the teaching expects procreation only to occur within the context of marraige, when it is, indeed, valued and good. (But speaking philosophically, a thing which is only good in certain circumstances cannot be held to be good by nature. Thus procreation is not a natural, but a situational good.)<BR/><BR/>I have examined the "presupposition" concerning the separability of procreation and sexuality in an earlier segment of this series, "Pro-Creation." To me it is self-evident that the two <I>are</I> separable, though in that essay I give numerous examples. You are, even in terms of RC teaching, mistaken in saying that "marriage is for children" at least to the extent that if a marriage doesn't produce children it is no less a marriage in the eyes of the church. It would be more appropriate to say, "the procreation and upbringing of children is a particular good of marriage, although parents without children are also fully married." That, I think, reflects the doctrine a bit more accurately. <BR/><BR/>I welcome your continued input on this matter, though I suggest that some real precision will be needed about this and related questions. There are many default conclusions to which people will move, which, on closer examination are not quite completely accurate. This nuance is important if you are to follow the argument I am making -- even if you disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>A blessed weekend to you as well.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-81490956615580229382007-10-19T17:57:00.000-05:002007-10-19T17:57:00.000-05:00Ah, but procreation IS a moral issue, it gives us ...Ah, but procreation IS a moral issue, it gives us the great privilege of cooperating in the creation of new human beings. Procreation is a natural good proper to marriage and sexuality, not simply a morally neutral biological process. God is pleased when a new human being enters the world.<BR/><BR/>So I (and the RCC) assert, as did most Christians up to the 20th century. And I would even hesitate to add, most cultures around the world up to maybe the mid-20th century maintained that marriage is for children. If we are going to have examine presuppositions, I would think that the new presupposition that separates marriage, sexuality, and procreation should first be examined. <BR/><BR/>However, either way, I'm going to continue reading this thread, since it is the only thread of its type I've ever read: trying to defend same-sex marriage through philosophical and theological reasoning rather than a simple appeal to human experience. <BR/><BR/>As it looks like a new post on the topic has arisen, I'm going to continue reading there.<BR/><BR/>Cheers and have a blessed weekend!<BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-48782557934251737372007-10-19T10:15:00.000-05:002007-10-19T10:15:00.000-05:00Thank you, Erika, for neatly summarizing the probl...Thank you, Erika, for neatly summarizing the problem. It is exactly the presupposition that is under examination, so it does no good simply to restate it. (This is one of the weaknesses of the "reasserter" side of the discussion, as the tendency is to, well, reassert.)<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the <I>moral</I> purpose of sexuality is found in mutual joy and respect, and the enhancement of society both between the couple and in the larger world. This seems to me to be a fairly plain understanding of the human moral mandate towards love and fidelity; and this is a moral value of which same-sex couples are capable.<BR/><BR/>Procreation, on the other hand, does not appear to me to have any moral value at all in and of itself, though it can be accompanied by the moral values I describe. But in itself it is a biological process, not unique to human beings.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-86135982083202903612007-10-19T03:11:00.000-05:002007-10-19T03:11:00.000-05:00Fr Michaelthank you for your reply. I'm not a theo...Fr Michael<BR/><BR/>thank you for your reply. I'm not a theologian, so forgive me if I misunderstood you.<BR/>But your argument appears to be saying that, because most heterosexual couples can, at some points in their lives, produce children, all married heterosexual activity is God given and lawful, even when one or two of them are infertile.<BR/>On the other hand, same sex couples can never produce children, so all of their sexual activity is never God given and therefore, at all times, unlawful.<BR/><BR/>If I understand that right, it means that, because heterosexual couples are the natural order and God willed, their sexual activity is good, whereas same sex couples are, by definition, not natural (although a certain percentage of homosexuality in all cultures and countries is the biological norm), and are therefore not willed by God and their sexual activity is sinful.<BR/><BR/>It is precisely this presupposition which Fr Tobias is examining, so the presumed morality of different kinds of infertile sexual activity can really only form part of the conversation if his argument results in accepting the presupposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-64292750787088130932007-10-18T16:51:00.000-05:002007-10-18T16:51:00.000-05:00Dear Fr. Michael,My concern with bringing in Origi...Dear Fr. Michael,<BR/><BR/>My concern with bringing in Original Sin is twofold. First, as you know, the doctrine of Original Sin is not universally emphasized in the Christian tradition — it is an essentially Western concept going back to Augustine; the Eastern Orthodox do not make much of it, and Anglicanism, which shares a good bit of its outlook and heritage (if not its polity) with Eastern Orthodoxy, while acknowledging the doctrine does not give it pride of place, and certainly not as much emphasis as it received in the Reformation.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the doctrine of Original Sin does not advance us very far when coming to questions of <I>actual</I> sin. Thus I can affirm that “sin entered the world and through sin, death” — though death was not in itself “unnatural” and came about through exile from access to the Tree of Life. Thus Adam was not “naturally” immortal but rather lived so long as he did not sin and thereby come to suffer privation of the divine presence. This view is consistent with the RC Catechism paragraph 376. Thus RC theology does not, as I see it, state that human creatures had bodily immortality by nature, but rather by grace, dependent upon the presence of God.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps more importantly, I’m don’t see how the question of Original Sin relates directly to the matters of sexuality at hand, as I find your attribution of certain natural processes to Original Sin to be faulty. <BR/><BR/>For example, I cannot accept your assignment of the natural infertility that comes with advanced age as having anything to do with Original Sin. This is an entirely natural consequence of the functioning of the human body. Since menopause results from the cessation of the production of a hormone, which in itself is also key to the “infertile period” I fail to see how you can attribute one to Original Sin but the other to “God's design.” Both appear to be equally part of the “design” of the female human being. <BR/><BR/>In any case, as the number of ova formed in the ovaries is finite (and entirely formed <I>in utero</I> before birth, hence, before the possibility of baptism!) there is no question but that infertility eventually has to take place.<BR/><BR/>Thus, your statement that “fertility is a fundamental part of who women are as human persons” is obviously false: an average woman is only fertile for about 1/3 of her life. She possesses all the ova she will ever have before she is born, though she cannot make use of them until the onset of puberty. One might well more accurately say that “fertility is a temporary condition caused by the action of certain hormones that affect women for part of their lives.” And that is where one of the many the problems with natural law arise. So much of it depends on one’s point of view of what is “natural.” I can state as a simple physical fact that fertility is naturally separated from sexuality, as part of God's “design” of the human creature. God “intends” grandmotherhood and grandfatherhood as much as motherhood and fatherhood. This, rather than the contrary, appears to be "natural" and true.<BR/><BR/>You correctly observe that a natural law approach has been more characteristic among Roman Catholic moral theologians — though even there it does not remain unassailed, and a number even of Roman Catholic thinkers, as well as Protestants and Orthodox, have pointed out the serious weaknesses inherent in a natural law approach. The primary weakness, and this is relevant to the present discussion, is the tendency to assign perceived ends as somehow distinctively or inherently connected to certain structures or processes. Thus procreation is held to be the proper “end” of sex. This position was somewhat defensible in the period prior to the discovery of the “naturally infertile” period and other knowledge about human anatomy and reproduction — but to maintain the RC solution in the face of newer understandings seems to strain credulity.<BR/><BR/>So I am perfectly happy to continue the discussion, but I am afraid that you will have to step outside a natural law framework in order to do so, as the natural law tradition — on this particular subject — has, I think, been fairly well shown to be unsound, in large part due to its having been based on insufficient, or erroneous, biological data.<BR/><BR/>Peace of Christ,<BR/>TobiasTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-47761585249521405872007-10-18T12:00:00.000-05:002007-10-18T12:00:00.000-05:00Erika: The moral difference is that the periodi...Erika:<BR/><BR/> The moral difference is that the periodic times of infertility of women are due to God's design of the human race: as they are of divine origin they are intrinsically good. The existence of these cycles don't change the fact that fertility is a fundamental part of who women are as human persons.<BR/><BR/> Masturbation and homosexual activity by their nature non-fertile. Even when conducted during a woman's fertile period, they are sterile, and thus completely divorce fertility and sexuality. <BR/><BR/> All this presupposes a sense of the natural moral law, a supposition much disputed within Christianity although central to the (Roman) Catholic understanding of morality. My take as a long-time larker on Episcopalian blogs and websites is that there is no consensus in the Anglican world on the existence of a natural moral law (that's also true on the "reasserter" TEC side as well, who seem to be sola scriptura when it comes to morality), so perhaps I'm barking in the wind to no effect here.<BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-11014482374007824082007-10-18T11:46:00.000-05:002007-10-18T11:46:00.000-05:00Fr Tobias: Thanks for taking my comment seriously...Fr Tobias: Thanks for taking my comment seriously.<BR/><BR/> I had assumed that the Anglican belief in the loss of the preternatural gifts due to Original Sin was similar to RC beliefs. The RC belief is that sensibility to suffering and death are results of Original Sin, not simply the result of deprivation from the Tree of Life. We would point to Gen 2:17 as regards this teaching in regards to death.<BR/><BR/> If Original Sin and its effects are seen as out-of-bounds to this discussion, then certainly handicaps the RCC position. OTOH maybe I am mistaken about the nature of these posts. If this is a series of theological posts about same-sex relationships among Christians at large, then I will continue. If this series is about the same-sex relationships within the Anglican Communion, then I probably need to absent myself from the discussion and simply lark since I'm neither well-versed in Anglican theological method nor in your doctrines.<BR/><BR/>God bless, <BR/><BR/>FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-87892422404043711742007-10-18T04:20:00.000-05:002007-10-18T04:20:00.000-05:00Fr Michael,I don't think I understand the differen...Fr Michael,<BR/>I don't think I understand the difference between intrinsically infertile sexual acts during a woman's cycles of menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding, and intrinsically infertile acts such as masturbation and same gender sex.<BR/><BR/>Where is the moral difference, when a heterosexual couple deliberately makes use of the infertile periods?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-28107484147884466252007-10-17T12:07:00.000-05:002007-10-17T12:07:00.000-05:00Fr Michael,I'm not sure I follow your connection o...Fr Michael,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I follow your connection of natural infertility at a certain age with original sin. (I take your point as far as disease.) The Scripture does not appear to support the notion that Adam and Eve were immortal by nature -- hence the reference to the Tree of Life. (Gen 3:22-24; some see the Cross as the fulfillment of the Tree of Life, and source of true immortality). On the specific point, I don't think there is any Scriptural evidence that people were intended by God to be perpetually fertile, any more than innately immortal (as opposed to gaining immortality by access to the the Tree of Life). Only in the resurrection do we have an assurance of final immortality -- and in this new life there is no marriage or reproduction, according to Jesus -- this is not simply a return to Eden, but a "new creation." There is no need for procreation in the life of the resurrection precisely because, as Jesus says, "they cannot die any more." (Luke 20:35-36)<BR/><BR/>You are correct, though, that I am connecting your points 1 and 3 -- though I would leave out the discussion of Original Sin as not really related to the issue. <BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that one may well argue against same-sexuality on other grounds, but not because it is non-procreative; as other forms of non-procreative sexuality are permitted. The locus of the "sin" (if there is one) is not bound up with the infertility. I would rephrase the final sentence to say that "procreation/fertility <I>is</I> not a relevant factor when determining who may marry." In fact, in church law it isn't -- that is, even in the RC Canon Law prior infertility is not a diriment impediment to marriage, unless its existence is concealed. Interestingly enough, impotence (the inability to engage in sexual intercourse <I>in humano modo</I> -- as the Canons say) <I>is</I> a diriment impediment. There was an interesting case a few years ago when the Roman Catholic Church barred a quadriplegic from marriage.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it goes without saying that I do not accept the Roman Catholic teaching on the moral status of contraception; it rests on the assumption (thereby begging the question) that the principal end of sex is procreation. On the contrary, I support the Episcopal Church's position that procreation is one of the possible ends of marriage, but not a necessary one. <BR/><BR/>Contraception itself was not forbidden under Jewish law, and opposition to it in Christianity appears to arise from a philosophical framework influenced by Stoicism, and closely related to opposition to Gnostic, Manichean and Catharist teachings. There has been continued pressure within Roman Catholicism to revise the teaching, especially at Vatican II, but also since then.<BR/><BR/>I address the "ends of marriage" more generally and particularly in an earlier section in this series: Pro-Creation, which can be accessed from the links in the side column.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-54620965991303072632007-10-16T10:34:00.000-05:002007-10-16T10:34:00.000-05:00The real difficulty with general statements about ...The real difficulty with general statements about which group of people makes better parents is that they tend to compare the best and most harmonious traditional family with the more dysfunctional non conventional family structures.<BR/><BR/>Of course, no-one believes that same gender couples who spend most of their time clubbing and cruising are likely to be good parents, but neither are many heterosexual families. I suspect if same gender couples had the same documented record of “divorce” as straight couples, it would be seen as an indictment against any form of same gender parenting. <BR/><BR/>Same gender parents who do not have their own children often adopt, and often those very hard to place children who would otherwise languish in state care.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, Rick has a point. It is very important that children have role models from both sexes. This is a real problem for children from heterosexual families too, where fathers often work long hours and barely see their children. In our modern society, where nursery and primary school education is almost exclusively female, there is a huge lack of positive male role models for ALL children. I could cheekily claim that children from all male households are better off than their peers in that respect.<BR/><BR/>My own children are happily settled with me and my female partner. They also have close contact with their father and with our many male friends. They’re very good examples of well adjusted, normal children.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, what matters is the quality of parenting, not what gender the parents are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com