Someone asked for the URL to read the whole dialog regarding cathmom5's comments and my support of her. Well, there was no single URL so I am making one (long) article to recap the discussion which started with an article by me, a comment by cathmom5 which was followed by Mr. Hays reductio ad absurdum. I'll not be including EVERY comment - if anyone is interested they can follow the combox comments which are included in each posting started by Mr. Hays and myself. At the end of this article I'll also be including the chronology of postings - so anyone who wants to read every comment in the context of the article they were posted, they can. Text I am adding in this recap will be in purple (as here).
It starts with an article by Mr. Hays, which I quoted entirely in my response to it - so I will begin here with my response:
On Triablogue there's an out of context quote from Alexander Pruss and comments which should be answered...
Note please, Pruss does indeed state that it is WRONG to directly will this infertility. Thus a couple who directly wills infertility is wrong and mortally sins in doing so - by WHICH EVER MEANS they choose to be infertile. With NFP the couple cannot willfully refuse one another - regardless of the time in the woman's fertility cycle. They may "plan" to participate in "the marriage act" during the time of infertility - and that's the "planning" part - but I reiterate, they cannot refuse each other during the time of fertility. If the desire is there, then they must allow "the marriage act" to go on unimpeded - by ANY means of contraception.
On to the illogic on Triablogue:
Other comments on this article (at the time of the publication of this article/response):
BBB said:
James said:
(1) What this undocumented "most Catholics" may or may not abide by is not relevant to the moral position of the Church. If a Catholic does not abide by the Church's stance - then, all rationalizations aside, they are in mortal sin.
(2) On this point James MAY be correct - IF the INTENT of the couple is contraception AND they have deliberately refused one or the other during a fertile period. THE point here is INTENT. If the couple PLANS to only participate in "the marriage act" during infertile periods - but "the mood" arises during a fertile period - then they cannot refuse each other without committing a mortal sin.
(3) Whether or not artificial forms of contraception are "effective" or not is NOT the point! Again, THE POINT is that it is a sin to artificially prohibit conception and it is still a mortal sin if the couple engaging in NFP refuses one or the other during a fertile period.
Tom R said:
cathmom5 responded:
Steve Hays responds to cathmom5:
Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?
Scott Windsor (CathApol) responds to Steve Hays:
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY. Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Now, perhaps Mr. Hays is objecting to cathmom5's use of "Christian" (in quotes) as if to imply those who practice Artificial Birth Control (ABC) are not even Christian. As I explained to "BBB" (who was much more respectful in his approach) - from a Catholic perspective, those who would accept and even embrace such violence against the sanctity of the marriage act - and against innocent life, well - it IS hard to consider them to be "Christian" at all. Perhaps Mr. Hays is ignorant of the fact that virtually ALL of Christendom opposed ABC methods prior to 1930 and it has been just since that time that non-Catholics began embracing this mortally sinful practice. I reiterate, it is difficult to see those who are WILLFULLY engaging and embracing MORTAL SIN to be "Christian" at all.
Now to answer Mr. Hays disgraceful polemics - he DID ask a question which I will respond to: "Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?" I would need Mr. Hays to clarify just who the "they" are who have participated in such "concoctions" and repeat my challenge for Mr. Hays to document those who have "concoct(ed) so many ad hoc distinctions" actually participating in "fornicating with nuns and hookers." Further - please explain at least SOME of these unnamed "ad hoc distinctions."
Will Mr. Hays clarify his position(s) and present some VALID argumentation - or should we dismiss him as a bloviating anti-Catholic bigot? Will he back down and even apologize (as a Christian should do) or will he entrench himself in his debased argumentation? Or, will he just try to ignore this and hope it passes by unnoticed?
I would also hope that other non-Catholics would join me in condemning Mr. Hays argumentation.
I state, here and now, if Mr. Hays can VALIDLY support his argumentation - I will acknowledge that. I do not believe it is possible for him to present valid argumentation to support what he's said - so what I would expect from an honest Christian debater is a retraction (or, again, VALID support).
Scott adds a comment to his own article:
It IS encouraging to see that at least SOME non-Catholics ARE taking Mr. Hays' approach to task on his blog. Kudos to them.
Hays also explains that "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme." Perhaps Mr. Hays would consider first challenging cathmom5 to clarify her statements (as I believe I have, if I was not too bold in speaking for her) before calling them "foolish" and then lashing out as he did and CALLING it a "logical extreme."
cathmom5 responds to Scott’s response:
Thank you, Scott, I appreciate your clarification of my comments on Triablog. It was not my intent to insult anyone personally, but several times when I've made comments on an issue, I have been personally attacked. I don't believe anything I said was foolish or I wouldn't have said them. I am sorry if my style or passion made anyone feel insulted.
Just to say one thing--I don't think what I said, in any way, would lead to Hays' so-called logical extreme. To me that argument about a pope using NFP as an excuse to do what he please isn't even on the same planet as what I said. What I believe I said is that ABC and NFP (practiced as intended) are not the same, and those who try to claim they are, are looking for justification for what, I believe, they know deep down is morally wrong.
Back on Triablogue under “Team Players,” Steve responds:
If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!
Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.
It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.
Here’s a guy who presumes to be an apologist for Rome, but he can’t grasp basic forms of argument. He doesn’t grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum.
An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn’t have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.
That’s the point. For the argument works either way.
If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes.
Notice that Scott Windsor doesn’t demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That’s because she’s a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her.
My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid.
But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It’s the same thing we see in the political sphere every day.
cathmom5 comments:
First off, thank you Cathapol for your defense of my comments and, more importantly, NFP and the Church's moral stand on openness to life.
Secondly, my intent was not to insult anyone. I find it ironic that certain things I say are taken personally by some protestant readers of this blog. I think it may be my style or my passion, but it is my intent to support the truth of the Church's teaching not offend Protestants. I think if we were to talk to each other face to face there would be less misunderstanding of motive or intent.
As Cathapol explained, some find it hard, I admit including me, to call those Christian who do not follow Christ's teaching. The sacredness of life was one of His core teachings. I believe that Christ's Sacred Heart is wounded every time a woman who claims to be a Christian puts a birth control pill in her mouth. She is not only injuring her own God-given body but could be killing an innocent life--both mortal sins.
Third, I don't believe I created any "straw men." I was a Protestant for over 30 years. I went to a Protestant, Bible-based College. I heard and I know the attitude toward and acceptance of contraceptives in that arena. My own mother, a wonderful Christian mother took ABC for 20 years--she no longer does, thank God, for personal reasons.
Now, just because a lot of women in the Catholic Church have been talked into accepting this easy way of "family planning" does not make the Church's moral stance on sanctity of life wrong. Nor does the fact that I accept and agree with the moral and Scriptural stance of His Church on this matter make my passionate defense of it necessarily make me wrong.
Those who try to say that NFP is the same as ABC are just plain wrong. In my experience, those who are the loudest in their protest against NFP or try to pretend NFP and ABC are the same thing are the ones who know the least about NFP or ABC. They, for the most part, want to justify their use of ABC by saying that NFP is the same--trying to take down, so-to-speak, His Church's moral stance on the sacredness of the marriage act. I don't believe that is a straw man--that is from my perspective and my experience.
Having practiced NFP for years, I know that it is not an easy course to take. A couple who practices NFP must communicate with each other, they must be "in tune" with each other morally, they must be in agreement on being open to life, and they must work, as a couple, to make NFP work. In my experience, a couple who is practicing NFP can hardly be doing it with the wrong motives. With so relatively few couples practicing NFP, I would hardly think motives are the problem.
We can also turn it around. NFP, practiced correctly, can also HELP a couple conceive which is one reasons why it is called Natural FAMILY PLANNING and not birth control. Couples have used NFP to conceive a new life, the same cannot be said for ABC.
I have spoken in as general terms as possible. I have not insulted anyone personally. I have expressed how I feel on the subject of NFP--From my personal experienc on BOTH sides of the "church" fence. If one feels personally insutled by anything I have said on the matter, I think they must look to themselves and wonder why what a perfect stranger says strikes such a nerve.
Scott responds to Steve’s “Team Players” argument:
Steve,
Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.
Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how "two wrongs make a right?" You justified your argumentation saying, "If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes." (The tu quoque fallacy).
Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).
I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond "motives" - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done. You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of "Christian" spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).
Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.
Chronology of Posts on This Subject:
It starts with an article by Mr. Hays, which I quoted entirely in my response to it - so I will begin here with my response:
On Triablogue there's an out of context quote from Alexander Pruss and comments which should be answered...
Pruss writes: In fact, the biological union does not even require the couple consciously to will the striving towards reproduction. The biophysiologically united man-woman organism instinctively and automatically on a biological level strives toward that end. What is required is only that the couple should not place an obstacle in its way, because the act of placing the obstacle is an act of disturbing the union. The act of contracepting is opposed to the end of the teleological process by which union is constituted. A distinction between permitting and causing is relevant here.
The couple that contracepts is the intentional cause of their infertility. The NFP-using couple, when infertile, is not the cause of the infertility: the natural cycles of the female body are the cause of the infertility, which cycles are independent of the couple’s decision to use NFP. The couple permits the infertility, and draw good from it, even though it would be wrong for them directly to will this infertility. That the distinction between permitting and causing is a significant one can be seen in at least two other examples. One is the distinction between letting die and killing, often discussed in the context of euthanasia.
Note please, Pruss does indeed state that it is WRONG to directly will this infertility. Thus a couple who directly wills infertility is wrong and mortally sins in doing so - by WHICH EVER MEANS they choose to be infertile. With NFP the couple cannot willfully refuse one another - regardless of the time in the woman's fertility cycle. They may "plan" to participate in "the marriage act" during the time of infertility - and that's the "planning" part - but I reiterate, they cannot refuse each other during the time of fertility. If the desire is there, then they must allow "the marriage act" to go on unimpeded - by ANY means of contraception.
On to the illogic on Triablogue:
It’s odd that someone as astute as Pruss would leave it at that. It’s of course true that the distinction between causing and permitting can sometimes be morally relevant or exculpatory. But it’s easy to come up with counterexamples where that distinction is morally irrelevant or culpable.But Pruss didn't "leave it at that!" If one investigates the link provided by Mr. Hays they can see that Pruss indeed explained further:
The other example is that of theodicy. God never causes an evil. However, in order to draw a greater good out of it, He sometimes permits evils. The greatest and clearest example of this was the crucifixion. God did not cause Judas to betray Jesus and Pilate to condemn Him, but He permitted it, in order to bring a greater good out of it. It is essential to the way that sexual union as one body is constituted that while willing the union one not simultaneously unwill the end (reproduction) the biophysiological striving towards which constitutes the union. However, it is not necessary that one explicitly will this end, only that one not will anything contradictory to it. The implicit willing of the unitive meaning of the sexual act, in the absence of a contradictory willing, suffices to make the teleological striving that constitutes the union be a willed striving—and hence a striving of the person, and not merely of the body, thereby effecting a willed personal union.It is a bit disingenuous of Hays to say Pruss left it "at that." Hays even quotes that Pruss says there are "at least two other examples" and then only quotes one of them - and has the audacity to accuse him of "leaving it at that."
In The Little Foxes, Regina doesn’t cause her husband to die from a heart attack. Rather, she permits him to die by withholding his heart medication. In that situation, letting him to die is morally equivalent to murder, even though she didn't positively bring about his demise.Sorry, but "withholding medicine" which is not an extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive DOES CAUSE HER HUSBAND TO DIE! Certainly "the cause" is the underlying heart condition - but if one willfully withholds the medicine from another against his will - that would be murder. A clearer example of this would be a mother refusing to feed her newborn infant... that is negligence and murder for the mother has caused the death of her baby. No rational human being with any sense of charity or concern for the helpless/innocent would simply say the baby died of starvation and leave the mother's culpability out of the picture. Clearly in The Little Foxes, Regina does kill her sickly husband by withholding his medicine, which IS Hays' point here - but the point Hays misses is the fact that "planning" to participate in "the marriage act" during infertile times is not the same as "doing it" during fertile times and then killing the seed by some chemical or physical barrier.
Natural family planning has a contraceptive intent, and–where successful–a contraceptive effect.I'm sure that those who condone contraception believe this to be the case, but if the intent is contraception then the couple is in mortal sin. The intent is to have "planned" participation in the period of infertility of the female cycle. If either party refuses the other during a period of fertility then that person has committed a mortal sin. Hays uses either false logic here - or demonstrates ignorance of what the Catholic Church really teaches on the matter of NFP.
This illustrates the problem with Catholics who use natural law to ratify a conclusion they arrived at by other means.
Other comments on this article (at the time of the publication of this article/response):
BBB said:
One of the main proponents of John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", Christopher West, uses this kind of reasoning as well.
He says that some people ask "What's the difference between causing infertility, and just waiting for the woman to be infertile?" His response is "what's the difference between killing grandma, and just waiting for grandma to die?"
The same illogic as above and has already been explained/dismissed.
James said:
Most Catholics (1) don't abide by the Church's stance on contraception anyhow. In any rate, (2) there's no substantive difference in intent between contraception using a calendar or with a piece of rubber (or a pill). (3) Doesn't the Church keep reminding us that contraception is "ineffective"? If it is, then there's not a greater likelihood of preventing pregnancy with a condom than with NFP.
(1) What this undocumented "most Catholics" may or may not abide by is not relevant to the moral position of the Church. If a Catholic does not abide by the Church's stance - then, all rationalizations aside, they are in mortal sin.
(2) On this point James MAY be correct - IF the INTENT of the couple is contraception AND they have deliberately refused one or the other during a fertile period. THE point here is INTENT. If the couple PLANS to only participate in "the marriage act" during infertile periods - but "the mood" arises during a fertile period - then they cannot refuse each other without committing a mortal sin.
(3) Whether or not artificial forms of contraception are "effective" or not is NOT the point! Again, THE POINT is that it is a sin to artificially prohibit conception and it is still a mortal sin if the couple engaging in NFP refuses one or the other during a fertile period.
Tom R said:
Well, yes. And the Spartans didn't practice infanticide, strictly speaking - they just left imperfect babies exposed on the hillside overnight.Well, J.J. Thomson's "violinist" analogy (the "unplug and let die" analogy) is 1) not taught by the Catholic Church in NFP and 2) how this violinist "gets connected" is not the same way most women "get connected" to their babies - in fact - the only possible comparison would be to that of where pregnancy resulted from rape (very few abortions are because of rape). The obvious difference here is that an innocent child dependent upon his/her mother is not the same as a presumably not-so innocent violinist who him/herself could choose not to remain connected - regardless of how this person (male or female) may feel about it. Tom's comparison is fatally flawed.
The irony is that in other spheres, "Catholic social teaching" is scathing of the "just leave people alone" thrust of Whig Protestant capitalism. Governments, say various Popes, have an affirmative duty to ensure that their subjects have healthcare, food, etc. You can't just ignore them while they starve, like Dives with Lazarus, or the "goats" on Judgment Day. Yet when it comes to methods of contraception, the Vatican has copied Judith Jarvis Thomson's "live and let die" defence of abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion and moved it a stage earlier in the life-cycle.
cathmom5 responded:
It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. The FACT that the majority of contraceptives are abortifacient doesn't matter. The FACT that contraceptives (the pill) causes cancers and infertility for thousands of women doesn't matter. The FACT that the legalization of the pill, historically, led directly to the legalization of abortion doesn't matter. Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?
My husband and I do use NFP, however, as you pointed out, our intent is not to be closed to the possibility of life. I am almost 50 and have 5 children. I don't know if my body could handle another child, but I tell you what, I trust God enough to believe that if I were to become pregnant He would have it all under control! And, I refuse to commit a mortal sin by using other artificial means to kill my baby or slowly kill myself.
Steve Hays responds to cathmom5:
cathmom5 said: It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions [sic]. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong...Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?
Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?
Scott Windsor (CathApol) responds to Steve Hays:
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY. Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Now, perhaps Mr. Hays is objecting to cathmom5's use of "Christian" (in quotes) as if to imply those who practice Artificial Birth Control (ABC) are not even Christian. As I explained to "BBB" (who was much more respectful in his approach) - from a Catholic perspective, those who would accept and even embrace such violence against the sanctity of the marriage act - and against innocent life, well - it IS hard to consider them to be "Christian" at all. Perhaps Mr. Hays is ignorant of the fact that virtually ALL of Christendom opposed ABC methods prior to 1930 and it has been just since that time that non-Catholics began embracing this mortally sinful practice. I reiterate, it is difficult to see those who are WILLFULLY engaging and embracing MORTAL SIN to be "Christian" at all.
Now to answer Mr. Hays disgraceful polemics - he DID ask a question which I will respond to: "Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?" I would need Mr. Hays to clarify just who the "they" are who have participated in such "concoctions" and repeat my challenge for Mr. Hays to document those who have "concoct(ed) so many ad hoc distinctions" actually participating in "fornicating with nuns and hookers." Further - please explain at least SOME of these unnamed "ad hoc distinctions."
Will Mr. Hays clarify his position(s) and present some VALID argumentation - or should we dismiss him as a bloviating anti-Catholic bigot? Will he back down and even apologize (as a Christian should do) or will he entrench himself in his debased argumentation? Or, will he just try to ignore this and hope it passes by unnoticed?
I would also hope that other non-Catholics would join me in condemning Mr. Hays argumentation.
I state, here and now, if Mr. Hays can VALIDLY support his argumentation - I will acknowledge that. I do not believe it is possible for him to present valid argumentation to support what he's said - so what I would expect from an honest Christian debater is a retraction (or, again, VALID support).
Scott adds a comment to his own article:
It IS encouraging to see that at least SOME non-Catholics ARE taking Mr. Hays' approach to task on his blog. Kudos to them.
Hays also explains that "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme." Perhaps Mr. Hays would consider first challenging cathmom5 to clarify her statements (as I believe I have, if I was not too bold in speaking for her) before calling them "foolish" and then lashing out as he did and CALLING it a "logical extreme."
cathmom5 responds to Scott’s response:
Thank you, Scott, I appreciate your clarification of my comments on Triablog. It was not my intent to insult anyone personally, but several times when I've made comments on an issue, I have been personally attacked. I don't believe anything I said was foolish or I wouldn't have said them. I am sorry if my style or passion made anyone feel insulted.
Just to say one thing--I don't think what I said, in any way, would lead to Hays' so-called logical extreme. To me that argument about a pope using NFP as an excuse to do what he please isn't even on the same planet as what I said. What I believe I said is that ABC and NFP (practiced as intended) are not the same, and those who try to claim they are, are looking for justification for what, I believe, they know deep down is morally wrong.
Back on Triablogue under “Team Players,” Steve responds:
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.
If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!
Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.
It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.
Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Here’s a guy who presumes to be an apologist for Rome, but he can’t grasp basic forms of argument. He doesn’t grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum.
An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn’t have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.
That’s the point. For the argument works either way.
If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes.
Notice that Scott Windsor doesn’t demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That’s because she’s a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her.
My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid.
But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It’s the same thing we see in the political sphere every day.
cathmom5 comments:
First off, thank you Cathapol for your defense of my comments and, more importantly, NFP and the Church's moral stand on openness to life.
Secondly, my intent was not to insult anyone. I find it ironic that certain things I say are taken personally by some protestant readers of this blog. I think it may be my style or my passion, but it is my intent to support the truth of the Church's teaching not offend Protestants. I think if we were to talk to each other face to face there would be less misunderstanding of motive or intent.
As Cathapol explained, some find it hard, I admit including me, to call those Christian who do not follow Christ's teaching. The sacredness of life was one of His core teachings. I believe that Christ's Sacred Heart is wounded every time a woman who claims to be a Christian puts a birth control pill in her mouth. She is not only injuring her own God-given body but could be killing an innocent life--both mortal sins.
Third, I don't believe I created any "straw men." I was a Protestant for over 30 years. I went to a Protestant, Bible-based College. I heard and I know the attitude toward and acceptance of contraceptives in that arena. My own mother, a wonderful Christian mother took ABC for 20 years--she no longer does, thank God, for personal reasons.
Now, just because a lot of women in the Catholic Church have been talked into accepting this easy way of "family planning" does not make the Church's moral stance on sanctity of life wrong. Nor does the fact that I accept and agree with the moral and Scriptural stance of His Church on this matter make my passionate defense of it necessarily make me wrong.
Those who try to say that NFP is the same as ABC are just plain wrong. In my experience, those who are the loudest in their protest against NFP or try to pretend NFP and ABC are the same thing are the ones who know the least about NFP or ABC. They, for the most part, want to justify their use of ABC by saying that NFP is the same--trying to take down, so-to-speak, His Church's moral stance on the sacredness of the marriage act. I don't believe that is a straw man--that is from my perspective and my experience.
Having practiced NFP for years, I know that it is not an easy course to take. A couple who practices NFP must communicate with each other, they must be "in tune" with each other morally, they must be in agreement on being open to life, and they must work, as a couple, to make NFP work. In my experience, a couple who is practicing NFP can hardly be doing it with the wrong motives. With so relatively few couples practicing NFP, I would hardly think motives are the problem.
We can also turn it around. NFP, practiced correctly, can also HELP a couple conceive which is one reasons why it is called Natural FAMILY PLANNING and not birth control. Couples have used NFP to conceive a new life, the same cannot be said for ABC.
I have spoken in as general terms as possible. I have not insulted anyone personally. I have expressed how I feel on the subject of NFP--From my personal experienc on BOTH sides of the "church" fence. If one feels personally insutled by anything I have said on the matter, I think they must look to themselves and wonder why what a perfect stranger says strikes such a nerve.
Scott responds to Steve’s “Team Players” argument:
Steve,
Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.
Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how "two wrongs make a right?" You justified your argumentation saying, "If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes." (The tu quoque fallacy).
Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).
I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond "motives" - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done. You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of "Christian" spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).
Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.
Chronology of Posts on This Subject:
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/pruss-on-natural-family-planning.html
- http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/08/nfp-and-false-logic.html
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/blunderbuss.html (not responded to as of this posting)
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/lecherous-popes.html
- http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/08/anti-catholic-lechery.html
- http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/team-players.html
\\\v\v\v\v\vv\v\v
v
v
v
vvv
