Comments on: A Contraceptive Mentality? The Limit Case

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:31:28 +0000

Father Larry,
I have my glasses back. My response is here:

http://vox-nova.com/2010/03/31/quid-sumit-mus-sacramental-presence-for-father-larry/

Thank you so much for you questions. I am happy to follow up with you in he comboxes.

By: Quid Sumit Mus?: Sacramental Presence, for Father Larry « Vox Nova

Quid Sumit Mus?: Sacramental Presence, for Father Larry « Vox Nova — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:29:51 +0000

[...] Sumit Mus?: Sacramental Presence, for Father Larry Readers may have seen that in a recent post about an unrelated topic, I made mention of the medieval eucharistic test question “Quid sumit mus?” or “What does a [...]

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:02:03 +0000

Thanks Dan.

And Maria, this is my impression as well and what led me to ask this question.

Es,
I have checked with Power’s book. The error is mine. I’m sure everyone is shocked.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:25:26 +0000

If all we mean is that sometimes it is evil to avoid children we should just say: “Sometimes it is evil to avoid children. In such circumstances it is immoral to do something perfectly legitimate in itself (i.e., abstaining from sex) for that end.”

All of which is to say, “The ends don’t justify the means (contra artificial contraception), and the means don’t justify the ends (contra avoiding children when they should be welcomed).”

This is perhaps the best summary of the issue that I’ve ever heard.

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:18:34 +0000

I find the terminology of “contraceptive mentality” very unhelpful in current Catholic culture. From my experiences of speaking at numerous conference for engaged couples, most Catholics seem to have no real understanding as to why contraception is immoral, namely, that it changes the sexual act. Instead they believe that it is immoral because the couple is trying to avoid a pregnancy. This leads to all kinds of confusion and resistence to the Church’s teaching on contraception by couples, who correctly point out that there are many very valid, if not almost morally obligatory, reasons to avoid pregnancy. It is difficult, uphill work to explain the real teaching of the Church on contraception. Introducing terms like “contraceptive mentality” simply further confuses the issue, by using the term contraception to refer to a different, though related, sins of selfishness, lack of generousity, and use of another in the martial act. While I think these issues are real, I think it is important to be careful with our language since we are dealing with wholesale rejection of Church teaching on a serious issue. To come to accept the Church’s teaching, it is important to truly understand it and that simply is not happening today.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:43:57 +0000

Father Larry,
I will get back to you soon. Though this was not the real issue of this post, I find myself unable to avoid answering sincere questions about the Eucharist. Right now my glasses are getting the lenses replaced and so I must work with my face 6 inches from the screen. When that is rectified, I will try to respond.

By: Fr. Larry

Fr. Larry — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:21:06 +0000

With all due respect to St. Thomas Aquinas, whom I count as one of my patron saints and often look to for theological answers, I would like to pose another answer to the question: What does the mouse consume? Since the whole substance of the bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine is transubstantiated into the substance of the Blood of Christ, I would argue that the Real Presence does not leave the Eucharist if a mouse would consume it because ex opere operato, because the substance has changed. The mouse eats not only the accidents but also the substance. Arguing that the substance departs before entering an unworthy soul, would create three problems. 1) Where does the Substance of the Real Presence go? and 2) Does the same disappearing substance happen when someone receives the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin? How can the reception of accidents confer the penalties sacrilege on a soul? 3.) Why would Satanists what a consecrated host for a Black Mass if Christ was not present? Rather, while it would be a great tragedy if such things would ever happen, I would argue that while the mouse does consume the Real Presence, because of the ex opere operato transubstantiation; however, the mouse fails to benefit spiritually from the reception, ex opere operantis, because it does not have a rational and immortal soul capable of benefitting from the reception. The theology preserves the doctrine of the Real Presence better than the Thomistic argument of only receiving the accidents. Since I am not a Latin Scholar, please excume me if I have used these terms incorrectly. Your analysis of my argument would be appreciated.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:18:22 +0000

David,
Whenever I go to the gym in downtown Toronto, I walk through Yorkdale, a consumerist paradise, and see the same street people each day. I find it sad and ironic how much we consume and that we then pay exorbitant prices to personal trainers in order to burn it off. We are burning the world’s resources in order to burn off the world’s resources while our brothers and sisters ask for a quarter.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:29:14 +0000

Of course, maybe “contraceptive mentality” isn’t a very meaningful or helpful concept, and applying it to people is just a way of feeling morally superior to them without any particular justification. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that, since no one here has actually accused anyone else of having a contraceptive mentality.

The banana in the ear is one thing, but the various ideas about food — i.e., food that you actually consume — are very provocative. One might easily make the case, I think, that taking the weight-loss drug Alli is immoral in the same way that using contraceptives is (allegedly) immoral. Alli blocks some of the fat your body absorbs from food, thereby lessening your caloric intake. Why not simply eat less fat? And in a world where millions of children a year die of hunger, how can you justify (1) eating food and deliberately blocking some of the nutrients and (2) paying $30 or more a month to do it? It seems worse to me than using condoms!

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:53:30 +0000

After reading DeMarco, I think my basic error (or oversight) in my original question was to limit the idea of a contraceptive mentality simply to those using NFP. It might have been more useful to ask what it is in and of itself and then see how that could apply to people using NFP.

By: brettsalkeld

brettsalkeld — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:52:10 +0000

I’m glad for your response to the banana bit. Someone was insisting that everyone knows that putting bananas in our ears was immoral (because that is not the ontological goal of a banana) and the only way to not hold that it was not was to be confused about sex in the first place. I thought that most people would think putting bananas in our ears had very little to do with sex and that most people would think it rather harmless regardless of their views about sex. Any anecdotal evidence I have collected since that time has confirmed my initial suspicion.

As to your direction, I think it can be pursued fruitfully. I just ran across this article by Don DeMarco:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3417&CFID=572268&CFTOKEN=57425185

Parts of it may be of use to you. He does spell out an idea of the contraceptive mentality in your direction (and does show that it is more than using NFP for unjust reasons) but he does not talk about the possibility of using NFP with such a mentality and what that means. That is the thing I am interested in here.

At one point he says, “At any rate, the “contraceptive mentality” implies that a couple have not only the means to separate intercourse from procreation, but the right or responsibility as well.” I think this is probably right, but I am more and more sure that this is very difficult to do with NFP. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I have a hard time imaging how someone using NFP would get this far.

By: Peter Farley

Peter Farley — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:07:12 +0000

Reductio ad apples and pigs. To be honest I did not get the Horace reference but rather Fr. Healey in 2nd year Latin in 1947 Brooklyn. Here is (was) his take:
Mea, mater, sus est mala. Go (or hurry), mother, the pig is eating the apples.
OR
My mother is an evil pig.

(If est is related to edax I do get the Horace, which Shakespeare renders “Devouring” in Sonnet 19 “Devouring time.”)

I admired your close reading. But I’ll stop now.