-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Richard Posner, the influential judge and law and economics scholar, has written a blog reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s recently publicized comments on condoms. Posner’s argument (that the pope is probably going to have to OK condoms in the near future) has its own sort of internal logic, but it doesn’t relate to anything in real life because all his facts are wrong.
What’s mystifying is that the concepts and facts that trip Posner up are not exactly obscure or hard to ascertain. If Posner had bothered simply to reference the Catechism — the very first place one would look, and instantly accessible online — he would have avoided most of the egregious errors he makes.
Without going into the merits of Posner’s overarching argument, here is an incomplete list of where he goes wrong in the piece, starting with the first sentence:
1. “It is always difficult to decide whether a religious tenet of a hierarchical religion, such as Roman Catholicism, reflects religious belief or institutional strategy.” In fact, in the case of Roman Catholicism, it isn’t difficult at all. The tenets of the Catholic Church that reflect religious belief are clearly spelled out in the Catechism. For institutional strategy, one might consult the Code of Canon Law.
2. “The Church has long been hostile to contraception, but the nature of its hostility has changed, and may be changing yet again with the Pope’s recent acknowledgment that the use of condoms may sometimes be justified as a way of preventing the spread of AIDS.” The pope never acknowledged that the use of condoms may be “justified” in any context.
3. “Eventually the Church achieved a partial accommodation by authorizing the “rhythm” method of contraception, since that was a form of abstinence and abstinence was consistent with Catholic doctrine-indeed it was enjoined on priests and nuns. But few married couples found it satisfactory.” It’s not clear what Posner means by this, but whatever it is it’s incorrect.
4. “[The Church] has been losing customers in the Western world, but gaining them in Africa-but Africans, ravaged by the AIDS epidemic, are pressing for a relaxation of the Church’s ban against contraception because condoms are a cheap and effective method of preventing infection with the AIDS virus.” This doesn’t relate to the Catechism, but…which Africans? And what is the evidence that condoms are a cheap and effective method of preventing AIDS infection? The best evidence indicates the opposite.
5. “In 1930, responding to the Anglican Church’s rescission of its prohibition of contraception, Pope Pius VI made an “infallible” declaration unequivocally reiterating the Catholic Church’s age-old prohibition of the practice, and his declaration was repeated by subsequent popes well into the 1990s.” There’s a lot that is wrong here, starting with the fact that it was Pope Pius XI, not VI, who promulgated Casti Connubii, which was not an “infallible” declaration in the sense of the word as the Church uses it.
6. “Concern with the loss of religious authority may explain another peculiar feature (to an outsider, at least) of Catholic doctrine, which is the ban on priests’ marrying and on women becoming priests.” Catholic doctrine does not ban priests from marrying.
7. “The problem of priests’ sexually molesting boys would be solved if priests were allowed to marry and if women could be priests, because then the priesthood would attract fewer homosexuals.” A textbook non sequitur. Does Posner think there is no molestation of boys in denominations that allow clergy to marry?
8. “The current shortage of priests and nuns…would also be greatly alleviated if priests could marry and women could become priests. But the solution would represent such a dramatic reversal of age-old Catholic doctrine as to undermine any pretense of papal infallibility.” Again, does the Catholic Church face any more of a shortage of clergy than denominations that allow married and women priests? And papal infallibility really is not relevant to the question at hand.
9. “An intermediate position for the Church to take-and the most likely position for it to take in the short run-would be to relax the ban on contraception only with respect to condoms, viewed as an essential preventive of AIDS.” I will bet a year’s worth of my wages to a year of Posner’s that the Church will not relax the ban on condoms in any short run that Posner cares to define.
Granted, Posner’s not a canonical lawyer, and his blog post is not supposed to be a rigorous, formal argument. But consider Posner’s prominence as a judge, professor, and public intellectual. I wonder how he would react if, for instance, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York took to amateur law criticism on his personal blog, and in doing so wrote about constitutional law without referencing the Constitution, criticized a Supreme Court decision without reading any of the relevant briefs or arguments, or falsely ascribed an opinion to a judge — while making glaring factual errors along the way. I think it would be fair in that case for Posner to wonder about Archbishop Dolan’s competency — not just as a legal theorist, but also as a bishop.
View all comments (62) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/30/someone-give-richard-posner-a
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 8:15PM
The Bible says that fornication is Sin and that unless it is repented of, sends one to Hell. (Rev. 22:15), Some try and say Hell isn't a real place. They even try and say no one really goes there. In other words, God doesn't really mean what He says, and that everyone will go to Heaven. That is a lie. Look it up. In the Bible, that is. If you care to.
Why would the Pope, or any Religious figure for that matter, ok the use of condoms, for ANY reason outside of the Marriage relationship? Is not this then condoning the Sin? Of course it is. Why even speak to such a thing in the first place?
Instead they ought to be preaching that the behavior is Sin, and that abstinence is the only way. That is what true Christians do. Can you just imagine a Christian Missionary going to other countries and handing out condoms to homosexuals? I think not! A Christian goes to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is one of repentance from Sin, to consider one's latter end if one does not, (that being Hell), and of turning to Christ Himself for Salvation, for there is no other Name under Heaven by which one must be saved. (Acts 4:12). But there you have it. When Religion goes astray from the Bible, this is what you will get. The justification of Sin and its practices.
Ryan| 12.1.10 @ 8:36AM
I think that you're reading something into the article that isn't there. I believe that the RCC consistently holds that the only place for sex is within the bounds of marriage. It's sort of "unspoken" in the article. I don't see anything about condoning extramarital or premarital sex.
Too Many Tims| 12.1.10 @ 3:57PM
You'll note that while she obviously can't stomach the idea of a pope, she has no problems hectoring us with her own infallible biblical teaching.
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 8:53PM
The Bible speaks for itself. I happen to love it. And actually, if you ever decide to actually read it, you will find that it tells you everything you need to know. It also says that Christians are commanded to preach the gospel, in season and out.
It also has nothing about Popes in it. Sorry. I will stick with EXACTLY what it tells me.
Hectoring is what you say when you just can't stand hearing the truth.
And yes, the Bible IS actually infallible!
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 9:54PM
Margie: Peter's office is fairly well described in Matthew 16:18. That office has been handed down one after another just like Judas' office was (Acts 1).
Jesus established a Church, not a Bible, and the Church wrote the New Testament and assembled the Bible by the Authority Jesus gave it.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 5:08PM
"And it shall be that whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21.
The "church" is the Body of Christ and consists of individuals, not physical descendants:
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many." 1 Cor. 12:13 & 14.
Jesus is the Pioneer and Perfecter of my faith. As it is written:
"But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." 1 Cor. 15:20.
He says that His children have the authority to be called children of God:
"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave power to become children of God; 3 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.
His words are what gives life, not a physical building:
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life." Jn. 6:63.
"Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the Prophet says, 'Heaven is My throne, and earth My footstool. What house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?" Acts 7:48 & 49.
Frisbee| 12.9.10 @ 9:36PM
Margie wrote: "The "church" is the Body of Christ and consists of individuals, not physical descendants"
So the Body of Christ isn't physical? Did Christ come in the flesh or not? Be careful about dismissing the flesh (1 John 4:1 ).
And what do you mean by "physical descendants" - offspring? The handing on of the office of Bishop (or episkopoi if you prefer the Greek) is clear in the NT.
Jesus said "as the Father sent me, so I am sending you. " and "Whoever rejects you rejects me." He said that to real individual men (with physical bodies - sorry to shock you), who also gave authority to other men, such as Paul gave to Timothy by the "laying on of hands" (2 Tim 1:6). While the laying on of hands is definitely physical, the overall transmission of the church to following generations (with the offices intact) is not best described as "physical", but it is certainly biblical and historical and factual, with real men identifiable throughout history. You are obligated to listen to these men, or you reject Him who sent them.
You know what's REALLY not biblical? Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Those are traditions of men dating back only 500 years.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 10:14PM
Margie wrote: The Bible "has nothing about Popes in it". That's actually strictly speaking false. "Pope" is just an English word from the older word "Papa" for "Father". So, the Bible does have "Popes" in it. One example is when Stephen calls Abraham "Father Abraham" in Acts 7:2.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 4:52PM
"And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Mt. 23:9.
I take my stand.
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
I take my stand.
Frisbee| 12.9.10 @ 9:49PM
Margie: you take "call no man Father" literally. But you do not take "This is my Body" literally.
How do you choose which passages to take literally, and which not?
Jesus gave us a Church. The Bible is inerrant, but only when properly interpreted. The Church has the correct interpretation, and knows what is to be taken literally and what not.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 7:45PM
Margie: physical objects of themselves are not evil. God made every atom good. Any thing can be used for good or evil. If a balloon is used for contraception, that is a sin. The same goes for hormone pills which are marketed as contraceptives (and are also abortifacients). If this pill is used for some other reason, then that use is not necessarily a sin. But yes, contracepting is always a sin.
Your other question about why any religious person would okay contraception you should direct to the Anglicans who were the first to do so in 1930 at Lambeth. (I wonder if Margaret Sanger was involved.)
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:08PM
Maybe I can boil it down for you.
Sin is Sin. Advocating the use of condoms for homosexual sex equals okaying the Sin. I think it is disgusting... to even go there.
Got it?
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 9:44PM
I have not read the statements attributed to Pope B16 in the Seewald interview. But I have been listening a bit to Catholic radio. It sounds to me like the Pope's statements were taken out of context by the Lib media and exaggerated for their own purposes (which is mayhem, confusion, and hell on earth). Have you read the Pope's actual comments? Or are you attacking that servant of God on hearsay?
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 4:49PM
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret.." Eph. 5:11 & 12.
I continue to take my stand.
"You are My friends if you do what I command you." Jn. 15:14.
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 1:44PM
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Maudie N Mandeville| 12.5.10 @ 7:31PM
Abortion: Religion of Mother
Margie's 42.8%
Pope's 27.4%
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 9:35PM
Here We Go Again.
Why Would You Be An Anti-Catholic Screwball?
Read The Article You Anti-Catholic Fanatic.
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 9:48PM
Now Timmy*~ watch it. The AmSpec moderators have told you to cool it, haven't they?
It's a free country that I live in. I speak truthfully and you don't appreciate it, therefore you must name call.
I am anti-Sin. If that makes me anti-Catholic, so be it. We no longer live in the age of Martyrdom, do we? Therefore you don't get to call the shots.
I take back not one word of what I said, as I spoke truthfully. And I did read the article.
John2| 12.1.10 @ 6:51PM
"I am anti-Sin. If that makes me anti-Catholic, so be it. "
You equate sin to Catholicism; then you say you speak truthfully.
Nice. Charming. Just charming.
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 8:59PM
Actually Clint (Tim*) equated what I said to anti-Catholicism.
I said I am anti-Sin.
I do believe God looks on being anti-Sin as quite charming, yes.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 7:51PM
Margie: actually, being anti-Catholic is a sin. So I don't think you want to be anti-Catholic.
Be anti-Sin, and be pro-Catholic.
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:02PM
Actually, I believe the Bible's definition of Sin:
"Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." James 4:17
According to my own conscience therefore, I call it as I see it.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 9:29PM
It is right to be a Catholic.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 4:43PM
It is right to be a Christian, according to the Bible.
"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.
Worship how you wish.
I will do the same.
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 1:38PM
"Let there be no divisions among you". 1 Cor 1:10
Clint| 11.30.10 @ 9:56PM
So Be It. You're An Equal Opportunity Fanatic Bigot.
Talk to James Anti-Catholic Bigot.
Then Read The Article
Margie| 11.30.10 @ 10:03PM
Talk to who? James? Oh, you mean the book of James where it says this:
"For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain." James 1:23-26.
John| 12.1.10 @ 9:29AM
Margie and Clint, let us show some Christian charity and understanding towards each other, and save your fire for the liberals
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 12:49PM
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38.
That's what I call Christian charity. I do it every day!
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 7:54PM
I agree John.
"Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:10PM
Somehow I must've missed that.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 9:37PM
Hi Margie: we all miss things, don't we? Hate the sin but love the sinner. Jesus died for Clint (or Timmy or whomever) as well as for us. In many parables Jesus taught that it is precisely BECAUSE He has forgiven our debts, that we are required to forgive others.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 4:39PM
He also says to repent of your sin, or else you will perish. (Lk. 13:3).
Jesus didn't slink away from those who refused to believe in Him. He told liars that they were of their father the Devil. (Jn. 8:44).
Just because a person calls themselves Catholic doesn't give them the right to lie, slander and abuse anyone else.
Tim*s Sin is between him and his Maker. I refuse to take part in it, or anyone else's.
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 1:51PM
Margie: I agree with you. Actually, being a bad Catholic is the worst possible thing to be. (Pelosi Kennedy and Kerry come to mind.)
"Thus their last condition is worse than their first." Luke 11:26
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." 2 Peter 2: 20
Brooksanne| 12.1.10 @ 9:35AM
Nicely done analysis or should I say excoriation.
Rich Rostrom| 12.1.10 @ 4:40PM
7. "The problem of priests' sexually molesting boys would be solved if priests were allowed to marry and if women could be priests, because then the priesthood would attract fewer homosexuals." A textbook non sequitur. Does Posner think there is no molestation of boys in denominations that allow clergy to marry?
---
The problem would be reduced, but not solved, for this reason: many closeted homosexual men entered the Catholic priesthood to escape social and familial pressure to date women and to marry. If priests could marry, there would be no such shelter, and fewer homosexual priests.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 7:36PM
Rich: that may have been the case, but I think the priesthood is no longer a good place to hide.
The origin of clerical celibacy is Jesus Christ himself. "...eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12
John2| 12.1.10 @ 6:48PM
Mr. Lawler's point is mostly untouched by these comments. Richard Posner posted a most unfortunate set of thoughts. Clearly he is out of his depth.
I understand he (Posner) is Jewish, so maybe he just does not know enough about the Catholic faith. Still he 'helpfully' advises us in how we might misapply it.
Bigot Much?| 12.6.10 @ 2:09AM
I'm not sure what Posner being Jewish has to do with anything. Why not stick to a discussion of his points, rather than resorting to the weak ad hominem. If Posner's argument is so weak, have a go at it. Don't try to obscure the issue by raising his religious background.
konastephen| 12.1.10 @ 8:44PM
Posner's speculation on how a reasonable positivist strategy for the Vatican would look made me really chuckle. What conceit. How Posnerian.
Lawler left me mildly disappointed by not taking it to the jurisprudential level. What is the jurisprudence of this Vatican? Is it not a reiteration of Thomistic natural law? Personally I'd have relished a thoughtful comparison of that school of thought and Posnerian positivism but that might be a bit outré in this climate of readership. Positivism has so won the day in America that people probably don't even know what natural law is anymore, let alone Thomism.
Margie| 12.1.10 @ 9:12PM
Yes, but do you know what the Bible says concerning any of what you write?
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 9:32PM
Margie: Did you know that the Catholic Church put up with Fr. Martin Luther for 4 years, and only excommunicated him when he started attacking the Bible?
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 5:13PM
Put up with him, huh?
Well I am sure that those who persecuted Martin Luther will appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ, for their treatment of him.. and all I can say about that is that I wouldn't want to be them!
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 2:03PM
Better to be them than Luther.
Luther wrote the 95 theses in 1517.
He added the word "alone" to St Paul's epistles, creating the doctrine of "faith alone" out of thin air, and violating Rev 22:18, "If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book."
When the Catholics quoted the Scripture "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) Luther actually attacked Scripture calling James "an epistle of straw".
So after 4 years of patient debates, in 1521, the Church defended Scripture and excommunicated the attacker of Scripture, Martin Luther.
I stand with James and the true Church, not with the word-adder and Scripture-attacker Luther.
Frisbee| 12.1.10 @ 10:06PM
Mr Lawler: thanks for your article. However, in point 6 you state "Catholic doctrine does not ban priests from marrying." Not sure what you were getting at. The fact is that Catholic (and Orthodox) practice does exclude priests from maryying. What it does not exclude is ordaining married men. A married man can be ordained (with permission). But an ordained man is not allowed to marry. Some of the apostles WERE married, but none of them GOT married.
Thomist| 12.2.10 @ 4:14AM
Mr Lawler writes:
“Casti Connubii, which was not an "infallible" declaration in the sense of the word as the Church uses it.”
Casti Connubii contains a definitive, infallible declaration against contraception in marriage as a “grave sin”, according to Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus which issued the dogma on papal infallibility.
The comments otherwise were spot on.
Maudie N Mandeville| 12.5.10 @ 8:33PM
Casti Connubii was issued as an encyclical. To be "an infallible declaration in the sense of the word as the Church uses it”, it must be issued as a motu proprio, "with the guidance of the Holy Spirit" to change something; to make permanent. Pius XI was simply "vindicating the divine institution of matrimony, follow(ing) footsteps of Our predecessor, Leo XIII, of happy memory, whose Encyclical Arcanum,[1] published fifty years ago, We hereby confirm and make Our own… ". Benedict XVI "invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters WE ESTABLISH the following:" in Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum REestablished the Latin Mass which had been hidden within Vatican II for 50 years, safely issuing an "infallible declaration in the sense of the word as the Church uses it."
Thomist| 12.13.10 @ 11:31PM
Maudie N Mandeville| 12.5.10 @ 8:33PM:
Casti Connubii was issued as an encyclical. To be "an infallible declaration in the sense of the word as the Church uses it”, it must be issued as a motu proprio, "with the guidance of the Holy Spirit" to change something; to make permanent.
Incorrect by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, which is the sense used for infallible doctrines.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) -- for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.
Precisely as in Casti Connubii and in Humanae Vitae
Scott W. | 12.2.10 @ 10:33AM
@Frisbee I think what he was getting at is that it is incorrect that it is a ban. Rather, single men make voluntary vows to God renouncing marriage and the Church then only calls those who have made that vow to the priesthood. I suppose many would say that it is a distinction without a difference, but seeing how Posner was serving up the old anti-Catholic whopper that celibacy causes repression which in turn causes sexually deviant practices (a silly and unproven mixture of Freud and fundamentalism) Mr. Lawler was reasonable in landing on him for it.
Margie| 12.2.10 @ 5:18PM
"..the Church then only calls those who have made that vow to the priesthood."
Which is wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that any Christian who wants to serve God should make such a vow, therefore it is wrong for any church to make such a requirement:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:2-5.
"
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 2:11PM
Jesus left us a Church, not a Bible. The Church has the authority of Binding and Loosing.
Paul and Timothy had the power of Binding and Loosing. You do not.
Thomist| 12.2.10 @ 5:36PM
Continence was an Apostolic Norm and those married who were called to be priests had to freely, with their wives consent, give up cohabitation.
Christ built His Church to teach all nations, with "he that hears you hears Me." No other ecclesial bodies have this mandate.
victor| 12.3.10 @ 10:54AM
Thomist:
"those married who were called to be priests had to freely, with their wives consent, give up cohabitation."
Called by whom?
God or man?
Frisbee| 12.7.10 @ 2:12PM
Jesus is God and Man. So the answer to your question is "both". The Church is the Body of Jesus.
Carlos| 12.2.10 @ 11:23PM
Margie, instead of railing against what appears to be a slight crack in Catholic teaching on contraception (of course it is no such thing), why don't you preach to the rest of the Protestant world that has no problem with the pill or vasectomies? And the reason that many give is that the Bible doesn't prohibit contraception. But that stance conveniently overlooks Onan in Gen 38:10.
The Catholic Church is the only Church in the Body of Christ that proclaims the truth about contraception and God's plan for sexual love.
victor| 12.3.10 @ 11:10AM
Carlos:
"the Bible doesn't prohibit contraception. But that stance conveniently overlooks Onan in Gen 38:10."
That verse has nothing to do with contraception or any other such teaching. It has to do with Jewish Law and how Onan broke it.
He was supposed to provide an heir to his dead brother, but chose not to fulfill the Law according to Gen 38:8:
"And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.", in order to perform the duty of a brother-in-law.
He had sex with his brother's wife, but did not follow through in order not to be obliged to her or care for her.
That is why God killed him.
This false of this verse as a condemnation of all forms of birth control comes from Augustine (AD 354–430), who said of Onan, “Intercourse even with ones [sic] legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it."
Thomist| 12.3.10 @ 9:03PM
victor| 12.3.10 @ 11:10AM
“Carlos wrote: ‘the Bible doesn't prohibit contraception. But that stance conveniently overlooks Onan in Gen 38:10.’
That verse has nothing to do with contraception or any other such teaching. It has to do with Jewish Law and how Onan broke it.”
Incorrect, as the answer by a renowned Catholic biblical scholar affirms:
ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN):
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text--spilled his seed on the ground--and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church--and nature--that contraception is mortally sinful.
Mike Kirk-Duggan| 12.4.10 @ 4:08PM
Re: Lawler's last paragraph. Isn't that what American Bishops have done as individuals and as USCCB? How many of them have read Roe v. Wade, or Griswold v. Conn? Or Brandeis on "Privacy", a prime source? Or Lawler for that matter. res ipsa loquitur.
Maudie N Mandeville| 12.5.10 @ 7:44PM
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, handed down two rulings legalizing abortion in America. Prior to these rulings abortion was prohibited in most of the 50 states. AFter 200 years!, the brilliant, enlightened '7' based their decisions on the "right to privacy," which they claimed was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but which they could not specifically find anywhere.ustice William Rehnquist and Justice Byron White wrote dissenting opinions in these cases, arguing that the Court had overextended its reach and exercised what Justice White called "raw judicial power." In 1983, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that Roe v. Wade was "on a collision course with itself." Many legal scholars from across the political spectrum have criticized the Roe and Doe decisions, including notable abortion supporters Lawrence Tribe, Michael Kinsey and Alan Dershowitz. Maybe these three haven't read the decision, either. lex mala, lex nulla.
Clevelander| 12.6.10 @ 11:54AM
I think Mr. Lawler's article misses the point for Catholics. The point for Catholics lies in the fact that Judge Posner thinks that when the Church acts and teaches, she does so based on ulterior motives. He believes that the charity and concern for others that she professes is in fact a pretext, and her true motivation is the preservation of her own power, influence and perceived authority. In that light, the Church, like most of the litigants who come before him on the bench, is a "corporation," Catholics are her "customers," and her doctrine is a mere "strategy." And so on, and so forth. The way the good judge sees the world—and perhaps his occupation has conditioned him in this—everyone in the world is prone to lie when doing so serves his interests, and the Church and her curia (or the board of directors, if you prefer) are no different. I admire Mr. Lawler's zeal, but if his audience is Judge Posner, then what a tremendous waste of time it is—at best—to try to change the mind of one who in his heart had already written you off. Be cautious about starting down the path of logical argumentation with any acknowledged master of that game before you have determined whether he is dealing with you in good faith.