Originally posted by NemesioLucifershammer: NB: It would really help if you could take a page out of bbar's book and put some thought into structuring your arguments.
You aren't disagree, #1. He's not asking that you state it in outline format. He's asking
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 [b]he understood it.
You both are saying the same thing, I think: a clear argument increases the likelihood of
intelligent debate.
Nemesio[/b]
Apparently I was incorrect in regarding this as a snotty comment then.
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't endorse that comment, you'll notice, only that an argument's
Apparently I was incorrect in regarding this as a snotty comment then.
structure is equally important to the point being argued.
If LH is having difficulty following your argument because of a
deficiency on his part, then that is one thing. If he is having trouble
following it because you aren't making sense, this is another.
I am sure that he restated you argument so that he could ensure
that he understood it.
For my part, I don't think that your argument has been unclear
(otherwise I would have said so), so I don't know why you are taking
my endorsement of his comment as a critique. And I cannot fathom
why you would disagree with him about the importance of an
argument's structure.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo get back on topic, gentlemen. 🙂
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 ...[text shortened]... me thought into structuring your arguments.
Contd...[/b]
I'll start with Argument II because it is the shorter one.
Objection II.1. The premise is not necessarily true.
(a) The article cited does not actually say that the Church teaches that the natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The statement cited may be the author's own view.
(b) The fact that it has Church "approval" does not imply that all statements made in it paraphrase the teachings of the Church. This is because the Church "approval" given to the document is just a nihil obstat ("No objection" ) which simply means that the document is free of doctrinal error (at the time of publication). The Church may simply have no teaching whatsoever as to whether procreation is the natural law purpose of sex or not.
N.B.: I'm not saying that is the case, simply that your argument does not give sufficient evidence to prove it is.
Obj II.2. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
(a) Premise II.1. states that procreation is the purpose of sex under natural law. It does not state that sex does not have other purposes. For instance, sex may have additional purposes such as the unitive purpose under the divine law.
(b) "Y is the purpose of X" does not mean that "X should be used for Y only".
For instance, the purpose of an army is to defend the realm against external aggression. It does not mean that the army should not be used for other purposes (e.g. humanitarian purposes, maintaining law and order when a severe breakdown happens etc.).
What it does mean is that X should be used for Y whenever possible and desirable and, under such a circumstance, X should not be used for other purposes in preference to Y.
N.B.: OII.2(b) also applies to conclusion I.6 from Argument I.
Now, on to Argument I:
Obj I.1. Premise I.1 is not true.
(a) What Pope Paul VI actually writes is:
"[Marriage] is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. 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 n.8.)
Hence, the purpose of marriage is to implement God's plan of love for the family. It is a consequence of this purpose that marriage obtains its unitive and procreative aspects. The Vatican Press Office translation (used in FLANNERY. Vatican Council II: More Post Conciliar Documents. Vol 2.) actually uses the words "seeks to develop that union" etc. This becomes clearer when one looks at the phrase in the Latin text - illam (in the direction of) persequuntur (to follow perseveringly).
N.B.: This makes it clear that the purpose of marriage is being served when couples strive to attain the unitive and procreative aspects, even if they cannot achieve their goal due to factors beyond their control. This should also answer your questions about infertile couples marrying.
(b) Even if one assumes that the sentence "As a consequence ..." in Humanae Vitae actually provides the purpose of marriage itself, that sentence provides at least two purposes to marriage - the unitive and the procreative (I would say there is a third - the aspect of rearing/raising children - as well). Hence, the sentence quoted (when quoted in full, at least) clearly implies that procreation is not the sole/only purpose of marriage.
N.B.: This objection also refutes your using this quotation to support P II.1 in Argument II, should you choose to do so.
The reason for my taking the effort to structure your argument(s) should now be clear.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course I added nothing - I was not trying to put words into your mouth, merely to clarify the argument (both for myself and the reader).
I 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:
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreativ ...[text shortened]... x not designed for procreation is "lust" and if you do it a whole bunch, you're "lustful".
The rebuttal of your "procreation is the purpose of sex/marriage" premise should answer the latter part of your post.
Originally posted by no1marauderI sincerely hope that arguments used in murder trials in the US have better validity, if not structure, than the one(s) you made.
I 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 w ...[text shortened]... body on how to present arguments; I do it every day for a living.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI won't waste my time further in this thread; your "argument" above - i.e. that approved Church documents aren't really doctrine and that they don't mean what they clearly say anyway - are soooooooo disingenous they don't deserve a reply. Anyone can read those documents and many more by the Church which say the purpose of marriage is procreation; the "unitive" purpose is clearly subservient as is explained in my post above - which you refused to respond to. You're very close to the line of outright falsehood to assert differently.
To get back on topic, gentlemen. 🙂
I'll start with Argument II because it is the shorter one.
Objection II.1. The premise is not necessarily true.
(a) The article cited does not actually say that the Church teaches that th ...[text shortened]... king the effort to structure your argument(s) should now be clear.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSomeone who insisted that an official document be produced stating something and when it was, then insisted that it wasn't "official" enough (even though it had an official approval stamped on it) and/or didn't mean what it said would be laughed out of any court no matter how "formally" they structured their non sequiturs.
I sincerely hope that arguments used in murder trials in the US have better validity, if not structure, than the one(s) you made.
Originally posted by no1marauder
i.e. that approved Church documents aren't really doctrine
One is like a Supreme Court judgment. The other is like a commentary published in the Statute Law Review. See a difference?
EDIT: That should read "Church-approved document", not "approved Church document". Catholic.com is not an official body of the Church. Also, the nature of the approval has been dealt with in my earlier post - it is an NOC, not an endorsement.
Originally posted by no1marauder
and that they don't mean what they clearly say anyway
Humanae Vitae does not say what you think it "clearly" says.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Anyone can read those documents and many more by the Church which say the purpose of marriage is procreation;
At best, you've demonstrated that the Church teaches that procreation is a purpose of marriage (not the purpose of marriage). At worst, not even that. If you have any Church documents that clearly demonstrate your point, you've yet to produce them.
Originally posted by no1marauder
the "unitive" purpose is clearly subservient as is explained in my post above
All your post says is that because one cannot have unitive sex without the procreative aspect, the former is subservient to the latter. But the Church does not teach that the latter is permissible in the absence of the former either.
Half of your arguments are easily resolved with a simple analogy - if A and B are two numbers and A is not greater than B; then it does not necessarily follow that B is greater than A. The two could be equal.
The rest of your post is just a grown man pouting, to which there is only one response - Grow Up.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you don't know what a nihil obstat is, look it up.
Someone who insisted that an official document be produced stating something and when it was, then insisted that it wasn't "official" enough (even though it had an official approval stamped on it) and/or didn't mean what it ...[text shortened]... rt no matter how "formally" they structured their non sequiturs.
As an aside, you're not painting a particularly pretty picture of US courts and judges with your comments. I'd hate to see the day when the courts and judges of my country cannot recognise basic logic or determine what is official and what is not.
EDIT: C.f. http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html
The author is probably SSPX (judging from his anti-Vatican II slant and some of the links from the homepage), but the basic points he makes about the nihil obstat and imprimatur are correct.
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]From Humanae Vitae:
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.
...[text shortened]... sio
P.S., LH: I will look up that stuff for you on the weekend.
"16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. "
EDIT: Just to address your point about soaking testicles in hot water, it is an act of induced infertility (even if temporary) and, hence, sinful in the teaching of the Church.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhatever your illogical, medieval church says an document certified as "free of doctrinal errors" by an OFFICIAL of the Church, in this case the Censor Liborium who also happens to be the OFFICIAL spokesman of the Diocese of San Diego, would be considered to state the official position of the Church. I guess an OFFICIAL spokesman isn't "official" enough for ya! 🙄
If you don't know what a nihil obstat is, look it up.
As an aside, you're not painting a particularly pretty picture of US courts and judges with your comments. I'd hate to see the day when the courts and judges of my country cannot recognise basic logic or determine what is official and what is not.
EDIT: C.f. http://www.kensmen.com/c ...[text shortened]... the homepage), but the basic points he makes about the nihil obstat and imprimatur are correct.
Sophistry might pass muster at the Vatican but it cuts no ice in courts or with me. And your psuedo-intellectual posing while spouting internally inconsistent gibberish is laughable; what are you, fifteen? Have a nice day, snotnose.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Whatever your illogical, medieval church says an document certified as "free of doctrinal errors" by an OFFICIAL of the Church, in this case the Censor Liborium who also happens to be the OFFICIAL spokesman of the Diocese of San Diego, would be considered to state the official position of the Church.
You don't have to shout the word "official" at me - I can read it just fine.
A document certified free of doctrinal error is precisely that - free of doctrinal error - nothing more (necessarily). Pick up any book with a "Nihil Obstat" in it - the words, "It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed," should follow. The Nihil obstat is no more a certificate that a document reflects the official position of the Church than a "U" rating from the MPAA is a certificate that a movie is recommended to movie-goers.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess an OFFICIAL spokesman isn't "official" enough for ya! 🙄
Bernadeanne Carr is a woman, actually.
But no. Her office as Censor Librorum* is independent of her function as spokesperson for the Diocese of San Diego (if that is, indeed, the case).
Originally posted by no1marauder
Sophistry might pass muster at the Vatican but it cuts no ice in courts or with me.
My posts are comprised of definitions and applications of logic. As I said before, your comments on the standards of the US judicial system are doing it no service.
Originally posted by no1marauder
what are you, fifteen? Have a nice day, snotnose.
The irony here deserves a rec. 🙂
From HV:
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
The term 'directly prevent conception' is the problem. Having conjugals during the infertile
period is just that: and effort to directly prevent conception. It is simply one of a variety of
means.
'God' doesn't make pregnancy happen; it's not something that has to be ordained in heaven
at a given moment. There are certain conditions. The woman has to be fertile and the man
has to have motile sperm. If you only have maritals during the infertile period you are directly
inhibiting conception. You can make the claim that, if its 'God's' Diving Will, the couple
in question will become pregnant, but so too will a broken condom or expired spermicide or
whatever.
From HV:
It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. "
I consider it abominable that the Church requires, as an expression of a couple's 'true and
authentic love' they are obligated to deny the woman's NATURAL and healthy libido
because (for obvious biological reasons) it happens during the fertile part of her cycle. There
is nothing natural about this.
Furthermore, while you've certainly provided information about why the Church holds Her
position on this issue, I've not yet seen any Biblical support for such a claim. I was always
under the suspicion that Doctrine was supported, at least loosely, by Scripture (e.g., the
Immaculate Conception, the Trinity, how many Sacraments, &c).
As I've said, the Church had long had an implicit teaching that sexual relations were inherently
sinful, as influenced by the greatest Church Father after St Thomas Aquinas: St Augustine. I'm
too busy to look up primary sources, but here are a few which focus on the topic:
http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book5/main.htm
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/bib-patriarchy/deception-augustine-love-sex.htm
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/bib-patriarchy/deception-jerome-marriage-sex.htm
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch25.htm
I recognize that many of them have an axe to grind, but perhaps they will give you a lead.
Certainly, St Augustine had serious issues with the nature of sexuality and those issues became
infused with Catholic thought. It wasn't until the 20th century that any positive spin on sexuality
was ever cast by the Church (and that, only in vaginal sex between married couples without any
form of artificial contraception).
Nemesio
Perhaps a statement from the now-Pope would be OFFICIAL enough:
Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, ABLE TO TRANSMIT LIFE; AND SO it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.(CAPS added)
- Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Cardinal Ratzinger 1986
At http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=1758685046899&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE