In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:
“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.”
I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.
Funky alerted me recently to an article by Annie Gottlieb, an accomplished and interesting author and friend of Ales Rarus, who advertises what purports to be a serious opposition to traditionalism in Towards a New Revelation (or, Why I Am Not a Traditionalist) over on AmbivaBlog. Since this site is frequented by a good many traditionalists, and owned by one (tho’ occasionally I’ve my doubts about that), he thought it might be edifying to here critically examine Ms. Gottlieb’s post. As you might expect, as a traditionalist I beg to differ with her.
Oh, wait, he just wants the Vatican to reconsider birth control. God save us from such an episcopate!
"Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act."
"That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics."
Say what?!? First of all, Pope Paul VI didn’t pull that ban out of thin air. The Church has always forbid contraception. The point of almost every papal encyclical, just like councils, is to clarify an eternal truth in modern terms. Paul VI only reiterated what the Church was already teaching to a generation itching for sexual license (among other stupid things). Secondly, the people who left the Church over this issue were never faithful Catholics in the first place. I mean, that’s a pretty flimsy excuse for leaving the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Either you trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it or you don’t. Thirdly, if Humanae Vitae undercut papal authority, it’s only because the episcopate and the presbyterate failed miserably in their efforts (or lack thereof) to explain Catholic sexual ethics to their flocks, and continue to do so. Lastly, I’d very much like to know how the Catholic Church’s hestance on contraception weakens her message on abortion and bioethics. It’s all of a piece.
The primary ends of sexual congress are procreation and unification. To block conception is to interfere with both of those ends. Contraceptives, particularly barrier methods, interfere with complete self-giving (an element of unity). They also interfere with the natural product of intercourse, a child. Furthermore, all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Abortion, like contraception, treats conception as an undesireable side effect of a primarily pleasure-oriented act. It also murders children, the true primary product of what should be a love-oriented act. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research murders unborn children and justifies that act by redefining the beginning of human life to some unspecified time beyond conception. It also seperates the creation of humans from the natural procreative act, treating them not as children to be protected and loved, but as raw material to be consumed. Incidentally, these reasons are similar to those for why the Church opposes artificial means of conception, such as IVF. Abortion and ESCR both result from a contraceptive mentality. Denying that sex should be a life-giving activity allows one to justify both the destruction of life if it interferes with pleasure and the production and consumption of life for one’s own purposes.
This Reuters article is very much wrong in its protrayal of Catholic sexual ethics, and reproducing it without commentary or caveat was an irresponsible choice on the part of the editors at CathNews.
(For similar thoughts, head to Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)
I tend to be a bit of an environmentalist (conservationist, really), but I have my limits. For instance, I’m not ready to conclude that global warming is a) a unique phenomenon separate from cyclical climate changes, and b) if it is, that human activity is mostly to blame for it. I have an open mind about global warming, and a big reason is my scientific education. I can’t look at the data (especially since it’s way out of my field of expertise) and confidently state points a and b. Mankind simply hasn’t been keeping climate records long enough for us to be certain that we’re ruining the planet. I should point out, though, that it’s better to be safe than sorry. There’s nothing wrong with being responsible stewards. Also, based on the evidence, I cannot conclusively dismiss not-a or not-b.
Now, having made my position clear (I hope), check this article out. Apparently, unbeknownst to scientists until recently, plants emit methane. In fact, they seem to emit quite a bit; current estimates range from 10 to 30 percent of the yearly global methane budget (between 62 and 236 Teragrams). For a breakdown of the budget (that doesn’t include the new findings, of course), go here. If I’ve calculated correctly, humans account for about 120 Tg CH4 per year. IOW, plants might be just as bad as humanity. Worse yet, planting trees to absorb nasty gases might be backfiring if trees and other plants are putting out that much methane. It’ll be very interesting to see if these results stand up to scrutiny, and if they do, how rabid "Hug a tree" lefties and "Earth first; we’ll stripmine the other planets later" righties will spin them.
In a previous discussion on embryonic stem cells, dlw asserted the following definition of an organism from Merriam Webster and the subsequent assertion:
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being"Thus, because it is not until the fifth week that we see organogenesis begin, according to scientific research, we cannot technically call the newlyformed zygote an organism, unless you want to use a nonscientific standard def'n of organism."
The Merriam Webster definition looks acceptable, but dlw misreads it. Two definitions are proposed, but they are not both necessary for an organism. A bacterium has no organs, but is composed of plasmids, ribosomes and sundry superstructures that are guided by whole. If a bacterium, the smallest living thing, is not an organism, I'm at a loss as to what is. The same can be said for an unicellular entity, like a zygote, that was not originally part of some tissue.
A skin cell or brain cell is composed of many parts whose functions are dictated by the whole cell (at least in part) as well, but they are not organisms. A skin or brain cell has features that make very little sense if the cell is taken on its own. What good is a synapse or a dendrite on a neuron if it's not plugged into a network, for instance? If you isolate a beta cell from a Isle of Langerhan in the pancreas–whooppee–it can make insulin, but what good is that without downstream cells to receive the message?
One may counter: fine, but how long would a zygote last without the womb, or an embryo without a placental life-support system? These are reasonable counterexamples, though I do not think they are on the same plane as an isolated brain or pancreatic cell like I mentioned above.
An organism may be dependent on another organism for sustenance but may still be distinct–for instance, an E. coli bacterium need human beings, specifically our large bowel, but we can distinguish between our two respective species. A newborn human may be out of the womb, but is quite dependent on other humans for support; yet we'd still mark the newborn as being a distinctive organism.
A person may be hooked up to life-supports machines–and in the future, these machines may even be organic or alive themselves–yet I think the physicians and the patient would have little trouble distinguishing between the two on a conceptual level, even though (depending on the nature of the device(s)), the two may become rather entwined.
One may argue that a hospitalized person lived on his own before extrinsic machinery came to his aid. True, but a fertilized zygote lives on his or her own before implanting in the uterine wall and cooperating with the maternal tissues to form the placenta. There is a distinction between the two. Thus a zygote may be defined as an organism. The link I provided implicitly assumes that the organism starts as a zygote. I'd be very curious to see a serious (i.e., peer-reviewed) biological article try to overthrow that, if a reader could provide one.
The link above is to a free online version of the Molecular Biology of the Cell, which is the standard text on cell biology, and which I personally recommend as an excellent text. The questions at the end of every chapter focus not just on memorization (which is necessary), but also on problem solving skills, and having you think through how experiments (including some very important historical ones) should be designed.
Addendum 12/10/05: Wesley J. Smith points to an interview about "the fact that so many scientists feel that if they come out against cloning they will be branded anti-science and face professional repercussions". It includes a definition of "organism".