From: mss2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:25:10 GMT

In article <1ef16kINNobt@gap.caltech.edu> ajm@wag.caltech.edu (Abner J. Mintz) writes:
>Michael says:

>>	"To be fair, they're hardly saying that people should go
>>around having unprotected sex.  Their line is that the main point of
>>sex is procreation within a monogamous marriage, and that sex which is
>>_not_ directed towards that is sinful.  

>Abner blinks, looking startled.  "Wait a minute ...  If sex not directed
>towards procreation is sinful, then does the Catholic Church officially
>oppose sex after the wife hits menopause?"  After considering a bit, Abner
>is sure that he would have heard about any belief that silly.  Still, that
>means there must be a flaw in the logic chain somewhere.  "If the Catholic
>Church *doesn't* oppose sex after the woman hits menopause, how would they
>make that consistant with sex being sinful if not aimed at procreation?"

	Michael smiles and shrugs.  "Search me.  As noted in another
article, I can't understand how they reconcile Natural Family Planning
(i.e. timing intercourse to avoid fertile periods) with their primary
stance, which seems an even greater problem.  As for sex after
menopause, I suspect that it is discouraged, at least if anyone asks,
but I'll grant I haven't seen any big campaigns against it either.
And, contrary to any impressions I may have given, the Pope rarely has
time for me to check these things with him.  :-)  All I know about
Catholicism is what I read in the papers-- and what I've absorbed from
such diverse sources as medieval history, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R.
Tolkien, several friends of mine, and probably there's some net
reading mixed in there as well.

	"However, I do think that an institution as old, literate, and
practised in disputation as the Catholic Church is unlikely to have
huge gaping holes in their reasoning.  Disputable premises, surely--
obviously, if one doesn't believe that the Pope is divinely inspired
then a particular Pope's interpretation of an issue is no more or less
valid than anyone else of his education and background.  If the Bible
is merely a book of tribal legends and partisan history, then
arguments from Biblical reference will carry no weight.  But I'm
inclined to give them credit for reasonably credible reasoning from
their premises (not perfect, and not necessarily mathematically
rigorous, but not foolish credulousness either).  And I'm inclined to
give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're generally trying
to honestly reason from their premises to their conclusions rather
than trying to justify a predetermined agenda via casuistry.  Not
always, of course, any more than any human institution, but as much as
any organization of people might be.  That being the case, I'd guess
they have some explanation-- not necessarily one that satisfies you or
me, but something somewhat more thought out than `because we say so'
or `well, nonprocreative sex is _sometimes_ okay, as long as it
doesn't involve latex'.  :-)  I suppose if someone is really
interested he or she could head over to soc.religion.christian or
bit.listserv.catholic and ask about there."

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	    Virginia (1784)