Read Part I of "An Exchange on Gay Christians"
Read Annie's response to Part I.
It's much the kind of response I was hoping for.
Good. 🙂
The question is whether demanding celibacy of someone not called to be a priest isn't "inhumane." It is pretty easy, and not very charitable, for a heterosexual, from the fortunate heights of normalcy, to condemn a homosexual to that fate.
A few days ago, Annie "Amba" Gottlieb, prompted by comments on a post she wrote about a gay Christian marriage ceremony, issued a challenge to me via email. I accepted and ended up having in interesting exchange with her about gay Christians and homosexuality in general. At her suggestion, we've decided to make our conversation public in its entirety (The only bits that have been cut out were irrelevant to the topic at hand.). I couldn't have written a better introduction than hers, so here are some highlights.
"[T]he stark irreconcilability of the two world views contending, is not new….What is new – and an emergent characteristic of the blogosphere at its best — is that, beginning in the Comments, passionate, open disagreement does not descend into a flame war. We can reject and even despise each other’s world views, yet we’re still talking, with respect – even with friendship. And this is a principle we hold almost as strongly as our convictions about religion, homosexuality, and marriage."
Without further ado, let the conversation begin. 🙂
Per my request, with intercessory help from Gregory Popcak, Kevin Miller at Heart Mind and Strength has posted clear and consise rebuttals that address the scientific and bioethical claims made by Bovens. Kevin has degrees in biology, chemistry, and moral theology, so he knows his stuff. He also got to the point much more quickly than did (Part I, Part II). 😉 Tolle, lege.
Read Part I of "The Great Embryo Killer?"
Having used what he believes to be sound reasoning to implicate NFP in avoidable embryo deaths, he then entertains some possible pro-life responses. Since there’s little actual reasoning in Bovens arguements, I’d just as soon skip his charicatures of pro-life rebuttals. However, since they involve subtle changes to his arguments and could easily stand on their own, I’ll briefly address them, if only to highlight his slight of hand.
"So what is the alternative? If one is concerned about minimising embryonic death, then one should avoid types of contraception whereby each unintended pregnancy (due to its failure) comes at the expense of a high embryonic death rate. Given our first assumption, a condom user (who makes no distinction between HF and non-HF periods) can count on one embryonic death for each unintended pregnancy. A rhythm method user, however, should count on two to three embryonic deaths for each unintended pregnancy. Assuming a success rate of 95% for condom usage, we can count on an expectation of .5 pregnancies in 10 years. Hence, the expectation of embryonic death is .5 per ten years for a condom user, which is substantially lower than the expectation of two to three embryonic deaths per ten years on the rhythm method. Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method."
"So how can this argument be blocked? First, one could say that the empirical data are questionable. However, the result really depends on the simple assumption that embryos conceived outside the HF period are less viable than embryos conceived during the HF period. If this is the case, then the success of the rhythm method is contingent on a higher embryonic death rate and so every pregnancy due to a failure of the technique will come at the expense of a higher embryonic death rate—and this is all that is needed to get the argument off the ground."
If that’s the case, then the argument is grounded. Continue reading
Those interested in the recent media hubbub about the Catholic Church’s stance regarding condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS should give the following a read:
American Papist:
Where the condom controversy currently stands
Cardinal Martini roundup
Michael Liccione (Sacramentum Vitae):
Why the condom debate is big for the Church
The Catholic condom debate II
Jimmy Akin:
Condoms & HIV/AIDS
Contraception & Extra-Marital Sex