I haven't studied Humanae Vitae, but I have spent a while arguing contraception issues with Catholics well-versed in and supportive of its dogma, and I have to say you're almost certainly wrong. Catholic dogma has a superstitious definition of an acceptable sex act which does not allow any "artificial" intervention. If you can't have sex with your spouse without a condom, then you can't have sex with your spouse. Sex with anyone other than your spouse is obviously completely off the table.

The only way that condoms could be acceptible for medical reasons would be if they were made acceptable for contraceptive reasons as well. That could happen, and monkeys could fly out of my butt.

Hokay.

On the one hand, I like the Catholic emphasis on moral philosophy in general and a kind of moral absolutism (as opposed to relativism). Some things are simply wrong and that's not going to change.

On the other hand, I'm regularly appalled at how often the church finds an absolute moral position that's either not a moral question or simply wrong. This whole prohibition of non-procreative sex, for example: You can have non-procreative sex unless the reason it's non-procreative is less than a century old, in which case it's forbidden.

(Was Humanae Vitae the Church's first prohibition against birth control of any kind? Has the Church addresses surgical sterilization?)

It's not moral relativism to re-evaluate your moral reasoning in response to new technology, because that new technology may well have changed the basis for your reasoning.

Bah.

The church has addressed surgical sterilization, in terms of castration. The castrati, if their music careers didn't pan out, couldn't become priests or marry. If you were incapable of having children (through no genitals, being barren is a seperate issue) you were not allowed to get married, since a marriage has to be open to the possibility of children. And you couldn't become a priest, as celibacy is no sacrifice when sex is impossible.

For a larger discussion of the castrati and the church, see Panati's "Extraordinary Endings of Practically Everything and Everybody."

My understanding of the birth control argument is like this: God made sex to make children. Sex for physical pleasure is an indulgence. According to Saint Augustine, it is possible for people who are right with God to have procreative sex without giving into animal passions and rutting like beasts. Just because new technology makes it easier to obtain pleasure doesn't make the pleasure acceptable.

The problem I have with that is that barren married people are still allowed to have sex, even though it's not procreative. Similarly, the rhythm method is a Church-sanctioned way for fertile people to have sex without children (with moderate probability). The Church seems to be picking and choosing acceptable and unacceptable non-procreative sex, and that's inconsistent.

Okay, remember that the Catholic Church is basically so conservative that parts of it disapprove of the wheel and view fire with suspicion. You also have to understand that many of these precepts were handed down without concern for things like rationality. Thomas says in his commentary on Peter Lombard that a soul enters the body at 40 days for a boy and 48 days for a girl. But when this was pointed out to the Vatican in re abortion, their response was that bad biology does not excuse bad theology. Oh, so *NOW* we care about science. The Catholic Church also isn't very good at maintaining cultural unity. If I had been alive at the time of the Great Schism, I'd have probably stuck with Orthodoxy.

I've had the basic doctrine explained to me many times, and it always seems to come down to the idea that sex always has to have the potential of being a procreative act, if that's the will of God. So the rhythm method, being a method with a high probability of failure, is acceptable, but condoms are out because they might actually work. That's an oversimplification, but basically you aren't supposed to do anything that actively interferes with the "natural order" of conception. You can choose to selectively abstain, because since there is no act of sex there is no potential for procreation (and so "natural family planning" is allowable).

By the same token, barren people aren't doing anything to interfere with God's will, so having sex is not any kind of interference with the "natural order", and so allowable. This one isn't really inconsistent, because it isn't that sex has to be purely for procreation, just that you can't actively interfere with possible procreation if that is God's will.

On the other hand, birth control pills are unacceptable because they can operate by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching in the womb (rather than just preventing fertilization of an egg) and so they are seen as the equivalent of an abortion because Church doctrine is that life begins at fertilization/conception.

It's really a fascinating set of rules that could really only be thought up and enforced by a group of celibate, elderly men. I doubt that such a system would hold up with married men in the hierarchy, because they'd quickly get sick of either trying to follow the "natural family planning" rules, or they'd get tired of trying to pay for a family of 12 on the money they get in the collection every week.

By the way, Catholicism does not have the exclusive rights to irrationality. Protestants complained about the lightning rod on the ground that if God wanted to punish someone, then it was impious to thwart him.

Atheists are no better (remember, that in Russell's debates with Copleston, the most Russell was willing to claim was agnosticism). They blithely dismiss any theist claim as irrational insanity, indicting such people as Kant and Einstein. Why? There's no evidence. Okay, so then we have an uncaused effect to deal with.

Additionally, we as a society forbid the teaching of religion in schools. This is purely stupid for the same reasons that not teaching sex is to wit, religion is an activity basic to the human condition. Additonally, arguments over religion cause a lot of damage. Instead of using the schools to promotew tolerance, we ignore it and let people pick it up on the streets.

On the other hand, birth control pills are unacceptable because they can operate by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching in the womb (rather than just preventing fertilization of an egg) and so they are seen as the equivalent of an abortion because Church doctrine is that life begins at fertilization/conception.

Not quite. Birth control pills which work by preventing implantation are additionally bad because they are abortofeacants. But birth control pills are bad even if they work by preventing ovulation (as most do), because they are a planned interference with the possibility of conception and birth.

Garry Wills's Papal Sin is vehement and unforgiving on the Catholic position on birth control, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the issue. Basically, the Church reached a position for political reasons (the Episcopal Church was moving towards accepting contraception, so the Catholics had to take a different position) and then had to make up a justification.

"Not quite. Birth control pills which work by preventing implantation are additionally bad because they are abortofeacants. But birth control pills are bad even if they work by preventing ovulation (as most do), because they are a planned interference with the possibility of conception and birth."

Which is what I meant, even if I wasn't clear. I thought I'd put an "additionally" in there when I wrote it, but I realize now I didn't.

And I cut something from my post that was similar to what you said because I felt I'd rambled for too long - the decision was originally arrived at for political reasons but has since been so justified and re-justified that it will take a long time for anyone in the hierarchy to change their minds on the issue. This is the church that continued to say mass in Latin for centuries after no one could understand it, after all.

And Mike, while I agree that Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on irrationality, I'd disagree strongly with the need to teach religion in the schools. I've read enough education history to see where that will lead.

I know what you're saying though. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in public schools, but no one has any incentive to teach them.