Contra Jacoby's Apologists
It has been a while since I posted my reply to Douglas Jacoby's short outline on contraception. I shortly received feedback, which I did request, but elsewhere, and not directly here, though I would appreciate it if it were posted on my blog. I didn't immediately respond, since I was busy with other things, like getting a girlfriend. A much wiser use of my time I think. Anyways, I'm finally getting around to responding to what the members of the ICOC have said in response to my response.
I wish they wouldn't call it an assertion, which carries with it an understanding of stating without reason, when I have given reason, which is, this is what it means to be "one flesh".
The heart, by which I understanding him to poetically mean the intentions, is used in some way to be very distinct from the actions when it comes to moral status of the parties involved. This would be a good response if I said that only the act matters, irrespective of intentions, which I never did, I would not say anyways. So this is a straw man of my argument.
This apples and oranges when you understand he previous point. What makes contraception immoral is that an act is intentionally used to prevent the proper function of the sexual organs and the sexual act itself, since the act and the organs are sacred parts of ourselves. A child walking in is neither intentional (presumably upon her part), and is not intentional on the parents part. But let me ask, could there be an understanding that when the child is gone, that the couple shall resume? If so, why? I think because they understand that there is kind of finishing act that needs to be completed, which then begins to reintroduce the notion of teleology, which they deny. If they answer no, that's fine, I'll allow them to bite that bullet.
"The argument falls apart when you compare the pills to condoms. A condom prevents the transfer of bodily fluids which prevents the two becoming one. Yet the pill only stops conception and the bodily exchange of fluids still occurs. Is that the same as Onan's sin?"
It is not the mixing of bodily fluids that makes a man and a wife one, though that is a necessary condition. So we can ask, why is it that bodily fluids make two people one? What is it about those "fluids" that makes them one? Why not any other kinds of fluids the body can produce? Why from the sexual organs? It is because it is the power, or potencies, that these fluids have, which is, the power to conceive. That is why contraception is immoral, not just condoms only (it's called contra-ception, not contra-fluids, for a reason). Saying condoms only are what we are talking about is like saying when I eat an apple, I have properly done what I have intended to do, even though I have chewed it, swallowed it, broke it down, and expelled it from my body, but retained absolutely nothing of value. It is the power of the apple, the power to actually feed me and nourish me, that is what makes eating the apple good. I may exchange bodily fluids, but if I'm being contrary to its power, I am not actually using it properly, we are not actually eating the apple properly.
I argued that Onan was not killed due to his failure to give children as commanded in Deuteronomy because the prescribed punishment in Deuteronomy is not death. A response given was, "Because Tamar was not given to Shelah at that point (v14) and Judah didn't want to do it because he might die like his brothers (v11)." This is a confused answer. Since what the cause is for Onan's death is in dispute, it doesn't help to refer to that without question-begging. So, the answer is reduced to, "Because Tamar wasn't given to him." But that's exactly the point. If you don't do your duty, God will kill you. Shelah didn't fulfill his duty (and the excuse that he wasn't old enough and he didn't have the chance doesn't fly anymore because verse 14 says he was old enough so he had the chance). Saying she wasn't given to him is just another way of saying he wasn't doing his duties! So, therefore, God should have killed him. But God did not. Hence, it had nothing to do with his failure to fulfill his duties.
I argued that grammatically, when we use the word "did" it refers to the most recent thing it follows. Now here is a good argument, "This is untrue. Take the following example: Lebron James led his team in rebounds. He led his team in scoring. He lead his team in assists. What he did was great so he won MVP. 'Did' does not refer to his assists in the reason for his getting MVP." This upset me more than it should have because I absolutely cannot stand LeBron James. So it rubbed some salt in a very legitimate point. But whatever, I can look beyond that. To the point. So, I was very vague and unclear when I said, "'Did' refers to the nearest thing." How terribly broad the word "thing" is. I was lazy and sloppy, so, I'll give half-credit. I could have said something more precise like "verb" but I didn't, and so, that's my fault. But in my defense, it's not like my posts get a lot of scrutiny anyways so I didn't set a higher stand for myself. So, what is meant by "thing"? Well, whatever the context demands. If the train of thought continues, "did" refers to that train of thought. "Did" could not refer to another train of thought four or five thoughts ago. If it did, people would justly be confused about what you were talking about. In the case of the LeBron example, his accomplishments are presented as a larger set, and that set of accomplishments is what earned LeBron his MVP, so, it still refers to that train of thought.
Now, applied to Genesis 38, what are we to believe "did" refers to? I have already argued why a failure to continue the bloodline is not a good reason because Shelah didn't either, and he wasn't killed. But let me pile it on. There is a parallelism in Genesis 38. It says that Er was Tamar's husband, but he offended God, and so God killed him. It doesn't say how Er offended God, but we know that he did. Now, Tamar is transferred over to Onan, and it follows the same pattern, which is, Onan offended God, and God killed Onan. But wait, there's a difference in the description. It is said how Onan offended God. So, whatever the difference is, this is what the "did" refers to.
Now, we have two competing theories: not fulfilling the bloodline, and using contraceptives. What is the difference between Onan and Er? Well, we know Er did not have children or else it wouldn't be Onan's duty to fulfill the bloodline. Therefore, the only option left is contraceptives. And so what Onan did to offend God and be killed was his use of contraception.
This was the substance of the responses, but there were a few others that deserve brief comments, so I'll treat them from here.
"The issue is that Onan used Tamar and pleasured himself. He took advantage without taking responsibility. That's adultery, which does merit death." I completely agree. This is actually a pretty good summation of what Catholics and other Natural Lawyers believe about contraception. We believe in self-control, not birth-control.
"You cannot interpret scripture by looking at the passage and book it is in. We should continue to look through the lens of other passages as well." Okay, what other relevant passages did you have in mind?
"This seems to be a defense of Catholicism and a put down of Protestants rather than an honest treatise on contraception." Well, it doesn't have to be a defense of Catholicism. Remember, as Jacoby said, it was universally accepted that contraception was gravely immoral. Many protestants still believe this. It isn't just Catholics.
"Why did the author want our opinions?" Wow dude, defensive much? Look, I have plenty of friends in the ICOC, and I know many of them look up to Jacoby. I think we can all agree we are on a search for truth. Since I am responding to this person who has influence in this niche of people, I think it's pretty reasonable to see what they think of my arguments. How cowardly it would be to give criticism, but not be open to criticism myself.
"He's not making efforts to understand where Protestants are coming from." Well, seeing how I was a Protestant myself from the beginning of my Christian life until I converted, a very reluctant conversion which you can read about here on my blog I might add, I'd say you're 100% wrong on that one.
"No one can stretch scripture to match a pre supposed belief like a Catholic." Gee, I guess all of Christendom was doing nothing but that for 1500 years?
"The logic is very similar to the Cult of Mary." LOL WHUT?
Comments
Post a Comment