- Oct 3, 2008Hey brave Ben!
"unnatural acts like coitus in vase
indebitum, even done in the context of marriage."
What is "coitus in vase indebitum"?
Natural Law huh? Wonder if vigilantism would find a valid place
therein...that is when Instituted Law fails to protect those it was
written to protect...but that is another topic...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "benhartmail"
> Two preliminary remarks before I get to the issue of contraception.
> First, I am unsure whether this is off-topic for the CRC, but seeing
> as we can talk about the demise of the RPNA ad nauseum, as well as
> whether one is a Jesuit or not for taking a slightly different view
> on the papacy, I figured this one should make it in. If not, Jerry,
> feel free to delete it.
> Second, while I am going to send a link to a document written from an
> explicitly Roman Catholic point of view, I myself am not an RC, nor
> am I sympathetic with their distinctives. But I do find the below
> article an interesting piece for discussion which it would do many
> protestants well to take seriously.
> That said, I want to suggest that those who are interested in doing
> so undertake a discussion of this (almost) classic article on
> contraception by Elizabeth Anscombe. Here is a link to it.
> I need to write a research paper on this issue for a natural law
> seminar so I thought some discussion with you all would be
> profitable. If it would be helpful, I can post a summary of
> Anscombe's arguments sometime in the next few days for those who are
> interested but don't have the time to read the whole thing.
> But to whet your appetite, here's a quick summary: after giving a
> historical case against contraception, she argues that people who
> find activities like homosexuality, masturbation, etc. unnatural
> should also find contraception unnatural. Her reason is that the
> intentional use of contraception changes the kind of act one engages
> in, turning it into the kind of act one could have outside of a
> marriage relationship, one that is intentionally infertile.
> (However, she maintains that this isn't inconsistent with the rhythm
> method (obviously keeping in line with RC teaching).) Because all
> the previously mentioned sexual deviations are deliberately
> infertile, they are no different than contraceptive copulation.
> Putting her conclusion another way, the use of contraception would be
> no different than obviously unnatural acts like coitus in vase
> indebitum, even done in the context of marriage.
> Also, for the more ambitious (who have the time), here is a short
> piece on natural law (seeing as Anscombe cites it in her argument).
> I hope that (at least) some of you will find this edifying.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>