I find it interesting that the Catholic view tends to make the primary telos of nuptial union most basically natural, as it seems apparent that the unitive aspect, being figurative of the gospel, ought to take primacy of consideration over the natural end rather than being subject to it. Maybe the gospel focus is just an outgrowth of sola scriptura emphasis in distinction to Catholicism's "matter matters" emphasis in this case. I look forward to seeing you continue to work over the chestnut at hand.
This is not quite right. Yes, the telos of the reproductive act is reproduction, but sex—to a Catholic—is meant to be unitive, as in two people expressing eros for and as a gift to one another. The issue is that—to Catholics—to fire up the reproductive organs and to render them sterile at the same time is intrinsically evil.
To make the point more clear, it is also wrong to have sex—not in fully integrated eros—but in order to conceive (a means to an end).
I appreciate your reply. I think what I'm trying to articulate is that there needs to be some understanding of the way these different ends of the act relate to each other, that is, does one take precedence, are they of equal importance, are they equally essential, etc.
Those are good questions. My understanding is that these ends must remain together but that they are not exactly equal. Two people come together as an act of love for each other. So the unitive side is in some ways primary. Otherwise the risk of using someone as a means to an end—to have a child.
I’m not sure it is possible to make sense of this from our contemporary perspective. I don’t think we realize how much our ethics is guided by utilitarian reductions and liberation narratives. I’m thinking here of Alasdair MacIntyre. In short, our world shaped after the ‘enlightenment’ obfuscates teleological questions. Our moral reasoning no longer starts by asking of the essence of things and their purpose. Our concepts of morality take tradition as a backdrop that we believe we can improve upon but we’ve lost any real sense of where or why that tradition was there in the first place.
You raise some very compelling points. I'd be inclined to agree that the unitive end is primary, but even then we may not mean primary in the same way. I am curious if you think this kind of discussion can truly help us recapture moral teleology or if, no matter how powerful our remedies, there is a least some aspect of premodern moral sense that is irretrievably lost to us. What I mean to ask you is, do you think we can recover or return to a premodern moral sense we lack or simply do the best we can with what we do have? I can certainly see a case to be made that we are simply too darn modern and that the weaknesses of the enlightenment you point out will take more than one generation to be worked out of our thinking.
I don’t think this kind of discussion can help us recapture forgotten moral frameworks. No.
Our moral imaginations are not informed by sermons or blog. Discussing something directly rarely yields the desired effect.
Is it possible to recover a premodern moral sense? I'm leery of all nostalgic, conservative politicking. I don’t think we can or should go back.
That said, I would hope it is possible to hear old wisdom, to really listen, not as tourists but as explorers. And I would hope it is possible to relive old debates and struggles that led to a much richer social fabric.
As hinted at in the comments above, I too think there is more to the biological purpose of sex beyond child bearing. The spiritual union, the “two becoming one”, the sharing, vulnerability, and intimacy of committed partners seems uniquely human and God inspired.
In Romans 12:10, the Bible instructs believers to - "Be devoted to one another in love".
Philostorgos or ‘Storge’ as it is used there in that passage has more to do with having a strong devotion and or connection to one another, and the familial bonds that arise among family members. If it is that Paul is imploring us to do so, [as Believers in Christ] then it would appear that ‘Storge’ takes precedence over Eros, and even in some respects is synonymous with ‘Agape’, in that Storge requires a relational dynamic that is evident within the Community of the Trinity itself. Starting at The Cross and looking backwards evolutionarily, one could postulate that Storge emerges out of a hormonal reproductive [hominid] Eros intentionally ultimately to reveal God’s being, i.e.- via Incarnation. A woman’s body for a thousand different reasons can naturally pass a Zygote, but it is not a willful process requiring her agency or choice. So, in that sense, ‘contraception’ is happening irrespective of what we perceive from scripture to be the ‘natural telos of sex’. The bigger question as Richard has mentioned is, can we accurately derive ethical & spiritual actions from a metaphysical overlay of natural history.
This is good Richard - and of course, these texts have been colored by patriarchy. We're eager to reduce the male burden in agriculture but "conservatives" demand that the female curse of being ruled by man and suffering through pregnancy and childbirth be reinforced in religious and secular law. Pregnancy is still often life-threatening even today in technologically advanced societies and yet right-wing Christians demand that wives always submit to their husband's sexual advances, not use birth control, and not be allowed abortion even when their lives are in danger. God's kingdom is a place where the patriarchy has no place and we can't make sense of Christian sexual ethics without confronting it head on.
IMHO first of all we should stop reducing eros only to sexuality ( that are romans vulgar way how to see it) . It is responsible of creation (as mentioned in Hesiods “Theogony”) but creation is broader concept. And Plato puts it well in his dialogues.
I find it interesting that the Catholic view tends to make the primary telos of nuptial union most basically natural, as it seems apparent that the unitive aspect, being figurative of the gospel, ought to take primacy of consideration over the natural end rather than being subject to it. Maybe the gospel focus is just an outgrowth of sola scriptura emphasis in distinction to Catholicism's "matter matters" emphasis in this case. I look forward to seeing you continue to work over the chestnut at hand.
This is not quite right. Yes, the telos of the reproductive act is reproduction, but sex—to a Catholic—is meant to be unitive, as in two people expressing eros for and as a gift to one another. The issue is that—to Catholics—to fire up the reproductive organs and to render them sterile at the same time is intrinsically evil.
To make the point more clear, it is also wrong to have sex—not in fully integrated eros—but in order to conceive (a means to an end).
I appreciate your reply. I think what I'm trying to articulate is that there needs to be some understanding of the way these different ends of the act relate to each other, that is, does one take precedence, are they of equal importance, are they equally essential, etc.
Those are good questions. My understanding is that these ends must remain together but that they are not exactly equal. Two people come together as an act of love for each other. So the unitive side is in some ways primary. Otherwise the risk of using someone as a means to an end—to have a child.
I’m not sure it is possible to make sense of this from our contemporary perspective. I don’t think we realize how much our ethics is guided by utilitarian reductions and liberation narratives. I’m thinking here of Alasdair MacIntyre. In short, our world shaped after the ‘enlightenment’ obfuscates teleological questions. Our moral reasoning no longer starts by asking of the essence of things and their purpose. Our concepts of morality take tradition as a backdrop that we believe we can improve upon but we’ve lost any real sense of where or why that tradition was there in the first place.
You raise some very compelling points. I'd be inclined to agree that the unitive end is primary, but even then we may not mean primary in the same way. I am curious if you think this kind of discussion can truly help us recapture moral teleology or if, no matter how powerful our remedies, there is a least some aspect of premodern moral sense that is irretrievably lost to us. What I mean to ask you is, do you think we can recover or return to a premodern moral sense we lack or simply do the best we can with what we do have? I can certainly see a case to be made that we are simply too darn modern and that the weaknesses of the enlightenment you point out will take more than one generation to be worked out of our thinking.
I don’t think this kind of discussion can help us recapture forgotten moral frameworks. No.
Our moral imaginations are not informed by sermons or blog. Discussing something directly rarely yields the desired effect.
Is it possible to recover a premodern moral sense? I'm leery of all nostalgic, conservative politicking. I don’t think we can or should go back.
That said, I would hope it is possible to hear old wisdom, to really listen, not as tourists but as explorers. And I would hope it is possible to relive old debates and struggles that led to a much richer social fabric.
But I’m not sure it is possible.
Our moral imaginations need a wider scope.
As hinted at in the comments above, I too think there is more to the biological purpose of sex beyond child bearing. The spiritual union, the “two becoming one”, the sharing, vulnerability, and intimacy of committed partners seems uniquely human and God inspired.
In Romans 12:10, the Bible instructs believers to - "Be devoted to one another in love".
Philostorgos or ‘Storge’ as it is used there in that passage has more to do with having a strong devotion and or connection to one another, and the familial bonds that arise among family members. If it is that Paul is imploring us to do so, [as Believers in Christ] then it would appear that ‘Storge’ takes precedence over Eros, and even in some respects is synonymous with ‘Agape’, in that Storge requires a relational dynamic that is evident within the Community of the Trinity itself. Starting at The Cross and looking backwards evolutionarily, one could postulate that Storge emerges out of a hormonal reproductive [hominid] Eros intentionally ultimately to reveal God’s being, i.e.- via Incarnation. A woman’s body for a thousand different reasons can naturally pass a Zygote, but it is not a willful process requiring her agency or choice. So, in that sense, ‘contraception’ is happening irrespective of what we perceive from scripture to be the ‘natural telos of sex’. The bigger question as Richard has mentioned is, can we accurately derive ethical & spiritual actions from a metaphysical overlay of natural history.
This is good Richard - and of course, these texts have been colored by patriarchy. We're eager to reduce the male burden in agriculture but "conservatives" demand that the female curse of being ruled by man and suffering through pregnancy and childbirth be reinforced in religious and secular law. Pregnancy is still often life-threatening even today in technologically advanced societies and yet right-wing Christians demand that wives always submit to their husband's sexual advances, not use birth control, and not be allowed abortion even when their lives are in danger. God's kingdom is a place where the patriarchy has no place and we can't make sense of Christian sexual ethics without confronting it head on.
IMHO first of all we should stop reducing eros only to sexuality ( that are romans vulgar way how to see it) . It is responsible of creation (as mentioned in Hesiods “Theogony”) but creation is broader concept. And Plato puts it well in his dialogues.