Switch
I am stuck inside in Hong Kong with a terrible virus. Luckily, it is stormy outside, so there is no reason for me to be out playing…
Mostly rhetorical, but open for discussion, comes the following:
- It should be legal to sell your organs to other people in the United States. To save a friend or family member, or even just to make monies. It is absurd to me that people are not entitled to their own bodies in this way, per federal law. We are allowed to abort a fetus, a tissue that is not our own, because “we deserve control over our bodies.” But when a best friend is dying, it is illegal for us to undergo an extraction to save their lives – even though doing so may have no significant effect on our own health. Talk about double standard…
- Fingerprints are so strange. How did we evolve such that we all have our own skin print in our hands? It is like we were destined to be identified by our skin. Us and koalas are the only animals with fingerprints. How strange…
- If heaven is outside of time, it must truly be the case that we are already living there. The doctrine that states our salvation/hell is a simple continuation of life is therefore obviously correct. But at the same time, that means that I am in heaven or hell already, since time does not exist when I get there… UHHHH…..
- Another area of Catholicism that I dissent from is the idea that one can only receive Holy Communion after they have been through RCIA or learned about the related doctrines first. Although it is true that it is important for recipients to know what they are receiving (the actual Body & Blood of Christ), I truly believe that those who seek the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist should be allowed to receive. I had a buddy just become Catholic who wasn’t allowed to just walk up and get Communion (despite believing fully in the True Presence) until he was done with RCIA. This hoarding of the most powerful spiritual nourishment we can ever experience is shameful to me…
- It really bothers me when kids who think they are cool use the word “rape” to describe a great defeat. Example: “The Lakers raped the Celtics.” What a horrible way of putting something. Grow up, rape isn’t a word to just be tossed about nonchalantly…
- I would like to know what the philosophical line is between pornography and art. Is there no way for the beauty of sexuality to be morally portrayed without crossing into a pornographic realm? Even the Supreme Court’s standard is “you know it when you see it” (concerning porn). That’s not good enough. Where is a naked body’s presentation holistic versus detrimental? Hmmm….
- Does molecular transfer of human beings (like in Star Trek, where they say “beam me up, Scotty!”) prove that the soul is something that we cannot define or explain? Or maybe even that the soul does not exist? Think about it. You step into a machine, which maps your structure down to the very molecule. Then, the machine shoots the stream of molecules to some other location, and reassembles you to the very atom, which would allow the subject on the far end of the transport to be exactly the same, even to the thought that you had while entering the machine on the first side. Effectively, you have been destroyed on the first side, only to be reassembled on the latter. Did your soul travel with you? How about if the machine doesn’t transfer your molecules to the other side, instead reassembling you with raw material from the other side? Does this lessen your identity completely? Hmm….
I also just finished a GREAT book called Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic. After reading it, I have many questions, and have changed my mind on a few issues (namely, birth control within marriage, the democratic nature of the Church, and a few other small topics). Worth the read, for sure…
I also just read Ron Paul’s Revolution: A Manifesto and one of my old favorites, Markus Zusak’s I Am the Messenger. Both are worth picking up…
That’s about it for now,
-kj-
Related posts
General agreements to "Fingerprints…" "It really bothers…" and "I would like to know…", and a "that's special" to "It should be legal…"
If heaven is outside of time, it must truly be the case that we are already living there. The doctrine that states our salvation/hell is a simple continuation of life is therefore obviously correct. But at the same time, that means that I am in heaven or hell already, since time does not exist when I get there… UHHHH…..
Who said heaven was outside of time? Everlasting != eternal.
Another area of Catholicism that I dissent from is the idea that one can only receive Holy Communion after they have been through RCIA or learned about the related doctrines first. […] I had a buddy just become Catholic who wasn't allowed to just walk up and get Communion (despite believing fully in the True Presence) until he was done with RCIA.
I am more than behind the Church on requiring some kind of initiation first. What you are describing, however, sounds like incorrect practice. RCIA, while it is the normal means of entry nowadays, is nothing resembling normal, and while I am not absolutely positive I am 99.99999999999999999% sure that completion of RCIA is relevant to one's Catholicism only by general correlation and has no actual considerable effect.
Does molecular transfer of human beings (like in Star Trek, where they say "beam me up, Scotty!") prove that the soul is something that we cannot define or explain? Or maybe even that the soul does not exist?
Nope. It especially doesn't prove this when it's currently unproven to be even a real theoretical possibility. (It might be able to by way of thought experiment prove something, but unless it's a real possibility, as opposed to merely conceivable, I don't necessarily think it can be grounds for legislation against any notion of "soul."
As for dissent…Just know that there are also a lot of people who disagree about the ability of a magisterium-faithful Catholic to dissent on the contraception issue–and since the proclamations seem to go more and more in the direction of "against," if you're dissenting on that issue you might consider the distinct possibility that you will be definitively and unarguably shown wrong (you may have been already, for all I know; I have yet to really read the literature on the subject and from Amazon reviews, a lot of the stuff in the book you read rests on claims I don't know if I've quite heard before.
I have to disagree on the "It should be legal." The gov't is interested in limiting the traffic in organs. If you want to read extended exegeses on this idea, read Larry Niven.
But aside from that, it violates the very Catholic notion that our bodies are in fact, our own property.
And to use abortion as a means of defending this can be argued as de facto agreeing that abortion is acceptable.
No, what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander. If abortion is bad, then organ trafficking is as well.
Otherwise, I appreciate how the both of you guys think and question.
Dangit, the Catholic notion that our bodies are NOT our own property.
By "nothing resembling normal" I meant "nothing resembling normative" and by "resembling" I meant technically speaking–it might appear normative on a superficial level, but it's not.
Daniel –
Of course heaven is outside of time. Can you conceptualize a way that it could not be?
You are right about the RCIA practice. And I also think it is a mainly Western practice, even at that. But if one believes that the Eucharist is the True Presence, and wants to experience that (barring some mortal sin), who is the Institutional Church to put possibly incorrect limits on who may come to the table?
Even if molecular transfer is impossible, you didn't answer what it does to the notion of a soul, even as a thought experiment. But I don't think there is an easy answer, nor is there with clones (Both would render the later subject still with a free will and intellect, some of the properties of having a soul)…
And you are right. A majority is growing that strongly opposes birth control within marriage. But that is not the Church at large. In a 1998 pew poll, 79% of Catholics believed you could be a good Catholic and disobey the official Church teaching on birth control. That is clearly a teaching not received. Further, there is no biological or biblical argument why the teaching pervades. It is purely based on the natural law, and a poor formulation of it, at that.
What do you mean by "you may be shown wrong"? That it is possible to dissent, or that birth control can be shown wrong from a natural law perspective? Because For the former, there is no such proclaimed thing as an infallible moral teaching within the Church, and this one seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere and in direct conflict with a council on the matter at Vatican II. For the latter, you are right; I could be shown wrong argumentatively. But I honestly believe the Church to have a very narrow understanding of human nature on this issue. Which is ironic, because in almost every realm, the Church has the fullest understanding of humanity that I have ever heard of…
The birth control issue could be a great topic for our first inter-blog debate…
CompassRose –
I will have to read that Nivens, but which book(s) speaks to it? I know he has a few…
I agree in a sense that it violates the principle that our bodies are not our own. And it may be unethical (though, what is the line between ordinary means and extraordinary means of saving someone, when the surgeries are not very difficult any more? And what is the grounds for it being unethical? After all, we do donate blood, plasma, and other bodily materials. What makes this different? We aren't allowed to donate eggs or sperm, if I am correct. Why is that? I might have to read up on it…), but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It is unethical to get drunk. That is not and should not be illegal. It is unethical to do many things, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I think willful organ-transplantation would be a great thing for the poor among us, especially. But again, I am not sure it is even unethical.
I agree using abortion is lame. But I am merely showing an inconsistency in the law, not defending the Great Sin of our Culture…
Hey Compass, do I know you from somewhere? Or is merely asking a breach of blogger courtesy?
Kev: As far as Larry Niven is concerned, start with "A Gift From Earth." It does posit a society -off of earth- that relies too heavily on transplant technology. Another that is more terrestrial is the short story "The Jigsaw Man" and any of the stories of Gil the Arm. I believe his latest collection there is called "Flatlander."
I know many of your cousins. Ailis was the one that alerted me to your blog. (I teach many of the Pasco cousins at TC Prep).
Thanks Compass,
I know Niven has some great short stories; I will be sure to check out more. Thanks for the recommendation.
I didn't mean to break some sort of internet code in asking who you are, but thanks for the heads up. I know Ailis and those Thorny girls are quite the philosophers, and I am immensely proud of them for being that way. I will be living with them soon.
I will honestly ponder the donation issue. I understand it isn't as clear cut as I may think, and I will be sure to have more of an idea of the issue before I start making any serious objections…
Thanks!
Can you conceptualize a way that it could not be?
God is eternal. I don't know of any created things which are actually eternal, that is, without a beginning as well as without an end. There might be some sense in which time flows differently in heaven and/or it may be somewhat "timeless," but unlike God it had a beginning–thus it is kind of difficult to conceive of heaven as not having any sense of time or happening.
As to the other stuff, I'll look into that some and get back to you. My caution was against teaching something as permissible that's likely to become definitively and inescapably impermissible. My suspicion is, quite honestly, that some of the same theologians who write about faithful dissent–which in some sense has been acknowledged to exist by all parties, and that includes me–will find a way to avoid proper submission to authority should it be further defined in the future.
As to contraception in general–it strikes me as highly unlikely it is permissible. Most of the things said about sexual acts by the Fathers of the Church seem to imply an unnaturalness in contraception that actually keeps conception from happening (e.g. condoms), and I've heard it alleged that the only open question that could actually be left is over the pill. I can't recall what the difference is there, so like I said, I'll look further into it. No offense–but should the tradition come down on a side, I doubt it will be on yours. So you'd best be prepared to recant.
I understand that what the Early Fathers of the Church were doing is trying to one-up the Stoics in regard to sexual matters… Simply because the Church Fathers taught something is not NECESSARILY a reason for it to be accepted as Christ-given truth. So I might not buy that reasoning on its face. There are plenty of even biblical things that have simply become null and void, and at the risk of sounding like a progressive of some sort, I think times change and perhaps the lack of anticipation in matters like this preclude us from saying "the Founding Fathers must have believed x or y."
I think you might be right about the formation of the teaching on birth control It may be completely outlawed one day by official Church teaching. But even if that were true, it would not be an infallible teaching, nor one of dogma or definitive doctrine. It would be one of authoritative doctrine. Accordingly, there will probably never be a time that it will be a required belief in order to be Catholic… This is true especially in light of the dissent shown by the laity and many bishops on the matter. I honestly believe that if the Church pronounced a more stringent standard on this issue, many of its followers would depart the Church.
As far as unnaturalness goes, if we truly want to be natural, even the rhythm method is not "natural" per se. Are estrogen pills necessarily more unnatural than the rhythm method? I don't know, but I don't think so…
It comes down to a question, which determines your whole view on the matter: Is there any room within marriage for sexuality based around love and intimacy and not necessarily for the purpose of creating children? If you find the answer to this in your heart of hearts (after pondering it and knowing you are contradicted by the greatest moral force on earth) is yes, the answers the Church has given are simply not sufficient.
What bothers me about this whole idea is a glaring contradiction in the Church's teaching. It is of utmost importance to the Church that materialism be stomped out. We are not simply biological machines. We are human beings, with souls, intellects, and the ability to love. And yet despite this main focus of the morality of human beings, sexuality has been reduced to purely biological processes by the Church. "Sex is for creating children only" (a position no longer held by the Church, as of Vatican II). "Sex must only be done in a non-procreative way at certain times during the month, following biological machinations." The second of these statements speaks to me of a stagnant and one-dimensional view of human love's spontaneity and freedom, in a way that values us only for our biological nature as far as sex is concerned. I don't buy it for a second. Love is not something that should be understood as static and biologically-bound…
I will stop rambling. but those are some of the main reasons. I have plenty more if you don't find any convincing…
I'm sorry. I'm not convinced. And you're right, the Fathers don't always carry an infallible weight. But I've yet to hear of any orthodox Christian pre-1900 who supported contraception, which makes for a consensus that's still pretty strong, and I highly suspect that peoples' considerations of conscience are more a matter of the way they wish things were, rather than an actual conscience-driven objection.
I guess, to me, it seems like there's at least as much room for dissent on things like masturbation, torture, war, BDSM, (married and consensual) incest, etc., as there is on contraception–if not more.
As to your query my answer is a highly qualified "yes"–the trick is that we maintain the "and" in "unity and procreation."
Lastly, a question. Feel free to address this in a post if you want: Is any Church moral teaching infallible to you? And if so, what makes it so?
I'll let you have the last word after this, but let me just get a last two cents in…
I agree, many matters are not truly those rejected for philosophical difference, but for personal comfort. But if you cannot say that there is room for an argument about love and sexuality here that supersedes the simple biological and reductionist terms on which the Church has framed the issue, there is room for spiritual and charitable growth in your life. Life is not simply as cut and dry as many of our purely intellectual comforts often make them, especially in light of love and human existence. This issue is not a static one, and condemnation to hell of people who cannot abide within it is not acceptable to me. Why do we say God is love if the marital expression of love is so limited to biological rhythms? Maybe marriage will change that for you. But I urge you to step outside of the purely mental framework which you and I are usually used to and think of it as one more close to the heart. Life is not always as simple as rules make it seem. That much has become clear to me in my studies of the law.
You're right about the pre-1900 theologians in this respect. But slavery was not officially condemned in an encyclical until by John Paul II. In fact, a few Catholic theologians biblically defended the idea until even 1950. Are you going to tell me that simply because there is no history for something within the Church that it is necessarily one way? I would love to know where the moral controversies of cloning or transhumanism from mechanical memory implantation to simple use of pharmaceutical stimulants is historically directly accounted for by anyone before even 1950. Sure, their truth can be derived from other matters. But birth control is not so clear, especially in light of the Vatican II counsel on the matter, whose conclusions the pope simply disregarded. I think you should really read up on the issue before you are so certain that it is an issue that I can be condemned for or in which there is no room for dissent on. I think you will find more room for dissent – as there is in many realms of moral teaching in the Church – than you seem to think here. Furthermore, if there is not, fully 73% of Catholics would be placed outside of official teaching of the Church. You can be certain that a sin's prevalence does not indicate its validity, but in deciding an issue so clearly as black and white vastly discounts human conscience, in a way that ensures the majority is completely wrong, is unworkable in the Catholic understanding of man being made in God's image with respect to moral capacity. I contend that the human conscience, even considering the mental hoops we jump through for our own comfort, is much more powerful than that.
As far as the infallibility thing is concerned (seemed like a bit of a last stab at me, really), of course I believe there are infallible matters. And (dogma, revelation, and much definitive doctrine aside) there may be morally infallible matters. But they are associated with human life and the circumstances surrounding the human soul's preservation, and they are not absolute rules. Humanity is not static, nor is God's judgment. Of course, that is besides the issues lke transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, etc. I even believe that if you do not accept infallible teaching, it can place you outside of the Church. But I would gladly ask anyone to point out anywhere where I have philosophically contradicted that which is infallible within the laws of the Church. I assure you I have not.
So maybe in exchange, I would pose you the same: Is there any major teaching of the Church that you reject, especially in terms of moral behavior – one that you cannot chalk up to not having researched the issue; one that you most there is to know about and still have trouble accepting? Because if there is not, great. But that life is not one for all of the people on earth. Humanity is simply not that rigid.
It kind of sounds like you are accusing me of not being Catholic, because I question certain moral precepts. But I have always been convinced that you really don't understand a concept unless you question it. And I stand by that philosophy… Thanks for the exchange, buddy. I look forward to your response…
-kj-
Because this is the internet I will note: Nothing I say here is intended sarcastically.
if you cannot say that there is room for an argument about love and sexuality here […] there is room for spiritual and charitable growth in your life.
There is always such room. Your statement is valid.
you should really read up on the issue before you are so certain that it is an issue that I can be condemned for […] I think you will find more room for dissent – as there is in many realms of moral teaching in the Church – than you seem to think here.
I certainly hope I didn't condemn you.
I'll read the book. One pattern I do notice in Catholicism is that things seem to go from being permissible to impermissible but not often the other way around. (I suspect that this separates slavery and contraception.) Maybe there's an example in your book of it going the other way around; I'd like to see it. I believe the Church's position on contraception will not change. Yes, I am certain, though as I hope I have communicated I am not 100% certain yet.
[D]eciding an issue so clearly as black and white […] in a way that ensures the majority is completely wrong, is unworkable in the Catholic understanding of man being made in God's image with respect to moral capacity.
Seems like plenty of people don't see the conflict. While there is some intuitive sense to what you're saying, you're making a pretty absolute statement. Most people, judging by action, dissent against the teaching on premarital sex. Does that mean the teaching isn't infallible?
It kind of sounds like you are accusing me of not being Catholic, because I question certain moral precepts.
I have some concerns about whether you practice proper assent to Church authority. Also, some of your positions may in the future result in tension with other positions and thus compromise your ability to speak as a Catholic to the world even if even if they don't invalidate your Catholicism.
There is no infallible teaching on which I knowingly dissent. There's a reason that when we have discussions I sometimes say "XYZ, provided it doesn't contradict Church teaching." When I entered the Church, I pledged a serious theological loyalty which remains even if I question things. I do have serious questions about whether it could have been licit for a Catholic to vote Obama in '08, despite the bishops' claim to the negative, but I submit my judgment to the judgment of the Church on that matter, knowing that it may very well be an illicit choice. Contraception, et. al. are uncomfortable, but I assent to the authority of the Church.
I don't want to put unnecessary weight on people. This leads to being a pharisee. But given the incredible weight against contraception in the Catholic Tradition, it will take me much more convincing than has been done–if such a convincing is possible for me–before I will assent to contraception as a licit means of family planning. Understand that the consequences of my beliefs for myself are not at all light and it might even (partly) cause me to not marry.
I feel like as a convert the bar for assent is higher for me than for “cradle Catholics.” Dissent makes me somewhat bitter. Sometimes that bitterness comes out in conversation. I'll try and curb it. I apologize if my question was a stab. I thought maybe you held the abortion teaching as infallible, that in that case there might be tension in your moral theology, and would be curious what to you makes moral teachings infallible. Make no mistake, I've always thought of you as the best kind of American questioning Catholic. And now I am done as well.