Something I just read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/worldspecial2/25priests.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1114696866-ezgqJW8YqK+AK1G2iEqIIw
"Father Silva said he believed that priests' views about Benedict generally divided on a generational line. The youngest priests, ordained in the last 20 years, seem most excited and pleased at the thought of a pope with a clear, structured, conservative approach to theology and firm boundaries and guidelines, Father Silva said. Some older priests - those ordained in the mid-1960's to mid-1980's, in the years after the Second Vatican Council and its promises of openness to modern times and to lay people - seem "not so enthused," he said. "
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis concords with another times article I read that said the same
Something I just read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/worldspecial2/25priests.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1114696866-ezgqJW8YqK+AK1G2iEqIIw
"Father Silva said he believed that priests' views about Benedict generally divided on a generational line. The youngest priests, ordained in the last 20 years, seem most excited and pleased at ...[text shortened]... s promises of openness to modern times and to lay people - seem "not so enthused," he said. "
thing about lay people. Many people between 18-30 want a more
conservative Church. Many between 35-55 want a more 'modern' one.
I wouldn't have guessed that the ordained demographic would have
had the same disposition.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderJust to set context, this is what you previously said:
The quote from the Humanae Vitae is not "fishing"; it states the purpose of marriage is "cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of young lives". Since sex is allowed only inside marriage and since the natural purpose of sex is procreation (RE the other Church approved document), please explain how I have not shown that sex is for ...[text shortened]... tile be guilty of the same grave sin as Onan ("spilling his seed"😉? Should he be put to death?
Originally posted by no1marauder
The confusion is in the Church's teachings; it believes that sex is for procreative purposes only and is otherwise "lustful". If need be I'll cite the 1968 encyclical where this is stated rather openly.
A couple of preliminary points:
1. You have yet to demonstrate how the Church teaches that sex for purposes other than procreation is "lustful" (your use of quotes suggests you're quoting some Church document - which?)
2. The citation from Humanae Vitae that you gave was the following:
"As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives." (HV 8)
Your post actually presents two arguments why you think the Church teaches that sex is for procreation only:
Argument I
I.1. The Church teaches that the purpose of marriage is "cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of young lives".
I.2. "Cooperating with God ... young lives" means procreation.
I.3. Hence, the Church teaches that the purpose of marriage is procreation. (from I.1 and I.2)
I.4. Sex is allowed only inside marriage; i.e. the Church teaches that sexual activity outside the union of marriage is sinful.
I.5. Hence, sex must have the same purpose as marriage itself, viz. procreation. In other words, the purpose of sex is procreation. (from I.4 and I.3)
I.6. Hence, the Church teaches that sex is for procreation only (from I.5).
Argument II
II.1. The Church teaches that the natural law purpose of sex is procreation (from the Catholic.com article).
II.2. Hence, the Church teaches that sex is for procreation only (from II.1).
NB: It would really help if you could take a page out of bbar's book and put some thought into structuring your arguments.
Contd...
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt would really help if the "debaters" on this site would take more time answering the points raised and less time in trying to prove their superiority in analysis of the structure of argument. You just made an entire post without addressing my points at all. My argument was "structured" just fine as the person it was addressed to understood it. I am not an academic interested in a nitpicking review of the semantics of the argument itself; I'm interested in the points I raise. Your "masterful" restatement of my points just managed to say in a couple of paragraphs the same thing I said in a sentence or two. If you think you've "run rings around me logically" you're wrong, all you've managed to do is to be evasive and long-winded.
Just to set context, this is what you previously said:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]The confusion is in the Church's teachings; it believes that sex is for procreative purposes only and is otherwise "lustful". If need be I'll cite the 1968 encyclical where this is stated rather openly.
A couple of preliminary points:
1 ...[text shortened]... age out of bbar's book and put some thought into structuring your arguments.
Contd...[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhile one may not be able to point a specific official Church documents,
1. You have yet to demonstrate how the Church teaches that sex for purposes other than procreation is "lustful" (your use of quotes suggests you're quoting some Church document - which?)
the strand of this thought has existed since the beginning of Christianity as a
product of misunderstanding St Paul's hatred for his own flesh. It manifested
itself in the various acetic Christian heresies, but also in the mainstream Church.
I don't recall the citation right now, but I am sure that St Augustine talks about
it. Consequently, although perhaps not explicitly ratified by the RC Magesteria
of past ages, it has been an implicit issue.
If you don't agree that such a stream has run historically through the Church,
I will endeavor to cite some documents for you. However, I think that it would
simply be an 'exercise' in sources since I think it is fairly obvious.
The Church has, in recent years, tried to distance itself from this point of view,
but traditions run deep and I can tell you that these notions are still projected in
the mainstream Church on a practical (albeit not Doctrinal) level.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderPatience, friend. The structure of an argument is critical to rebutting it - as are the validity of the premises used to build the argument. Structuring is necessary to identify and differentiate premises and conclusions.
It would really help if the "debaters" on this site would take more time answering the points raised and less time in trying to prove their superiority in analysis of the structure of argument. You just made an entire post wi ...[text shortened]... wrong, all you've managed to do is to be evasive and long-winded.
Besides, it's not exactly easy trying to write a thorough refutation from work.
So, as I said, patience.
Btw, I assume you're happy with this statement of your argument - if you're not, please feel free to restate as necessary.
LH
Originally posted by NemesioAny citations would be most helpful. Having no background in theology, I wouldn't know where to look.
While one may not be able to point a specific official Church documents,
the strand of this thought has existed since the beginning of Christianity as a
product of misunderstanding St Paul's hatred for his own flesh. It manifested
itself in the various acetic Christian heresies, but also in the mainstream Church.
I don't recall the citation ...[text shortened]... till projected in
the mainstream Church on a practical (albeit not Doctrinal) level.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was happy with my original statement; you added nothing. The premises of my argument were crystal clear without your restatement. From the Roman Catholic Cathecism 2351:
Patience, friend. The structure of an argument is critical to rebutting it - as are the validity of the premises used to build the argument. Structuring is necessary to identify and differentiate premises and conclusions.
Besides, it's not exactly easy trying to write a thorough refutation from work.
So, as I said, patience.
Btw, I assume y ...[text shortened]... his statement of your argument - if you're not, please feel free to restate as necessary.
LH
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
By "unitive" purposes, the RCC is referring to the strengthening of the marriage bond through sex. As cited above, the purpose of sex and therefore, marriage (as sex is forbidden outside of marriage) is procreation. Therefore, these "unitive" purposes are subservient to the primary procreative purposes of sex/marriage. One cannot have sex for "unitive" purposes without allowing for the possibility of procreation. Therefore, sex not designed for procreation is "lust" and if you do it a whole bunch, you're "lustful".
Originally posted by NemesioI don't; if an argument is clear then there is no need to restate it in formal terms. I object to people on an internet chess site insisting that I make my arguments in a more formal manner than a judge in a murder case would want. I also don't care for the smug, psuedo-intellectual comment lucifershammer made that I should "take a page from Bbarr" in structuring my arguments. I don't need lessons from anybody on how to present arguments; I do it every day for a living.
I share this position.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou aren't disagree, #1. He's not asking that you state it in outline format. He's asking
I don't; if an argument is clear then there is no need to restate it in formal terms.
that you state it clearly.
Since he summarized you argument correctly, you must have stated it reasonably clearly.
In all likelihood, he was rephrasing your argument to ensure that he understood it.
You both are saying the same thing, I think: a clear argument increases the likelihood of
intelligent debate.
Nemesio
From the Roman Catholic Cathecism 2351:
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
Originally posted by no1marauder
By "unitive" purposes, the RCC is referring to the strengthening of the marriage bond through sex. As cited above, the purpose of sex and therefore, marriage (as sex is forbidden outside of marriage) is procreation. Therefore, these "unitive" purposes are subservient to the primary procreative purposes of sex/marriage. One cannot have sex for "unitive" purposes without allowing for the possibility of procreation. Therefore, sex not designed for procreation is "lust" and if you do it a whole bunch, you're "lustful".
I think #1 has hit on the circular aspect of the argument. In short:
The RCC believes that sex should:
1) Unite the married couple; and
2) Be open to the possibility of procreation.
As I observed, the couples using so-called NFP method to avoid pregnancy is just as 'opened'
to procreation as a couple using condoms or other similar contraceptive devices, as the rates of
'accidental' pregnancy is comparable.
And, as I observed, couples using so-called NFP are striving just as hard to avoid pregnancy
at inconvenient times as a couple using condoms as a contraceptive device; that is, they are just
as uninterested ('unopened'😉 to the incidence of procreation.
The Church still has this thread of 'lust' as indistinct from enjoying conjugals, as if enjoying the
intimacy between partners without wanting children is somehow perverse. (Un)Natural Family
Planning perpetuates that view by requiring that women abstain from conjugal relations during the
very times that they would be most able to enjoy it.
The Church has come a long way, but it still has a way to go.
Nemesio
P.S., LH: I will look up that stuff for you on the weekend.