NFP vs. Contraception

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Please help me to better understand this issue. I don’t need convincing on the sinfulness of contraception. I need to better understand the relationship to NFP, which the Church allows.

In your initial post, you state: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful". But doesn’t this occur in NFP? Isn’t the couple planning their sexual relations around a time that it is almost certain to be unfruitful? Aren’t they divorcing the pleasure of the act from its openess to life? Isn’t their intent the same as the couple who uses artificial contraception; only the "means" being different?

I do understand that God did not design us so that every sexual act produces children. Of course, NFP takes advantage of this. I also know that there is always a chance of new life, even when practicing NFP properly. But there is also that chance with artificial contraception. It is not 100% effective.

Help me understand the distinction here. My logic must be flawed, because I know the thinkers in the Church are a lot smarter than I am!

You have put your finger on the decisive fact in this: "God did not design us so that every sexual act produces children. . . . NFP takes advantage of this."

In many mammalian species, God designed things so that the males are sexually receptive all the time, while females are only sexually receptive in proximity to their fertile period. Thus such species tend to only engage in sexual activity in proximity to fertility.

But God designed humans different. In our species both genders are sexually receptive in general, not just when a woman is fertile (though there appears to be an increase of sexual receptivity at that time). The result is that humans engage in sexual activity even though most of the time it has no chance of resulting in procreation.

The fact that we cannot, in the case of any given act of marital congress, utterly rule out the possibility of procreation, this says more about the limitations of our predictive ability than anything else. If we had better knowledge of what was happening in a woman’s body (as we well may one day), we would be able to say with certainty that there will be no procreation from a particular act of union.

Even so, we can in the case of a great many couples (those where the husband or the wife or both are infertile, either due to age or some other cause) say with certainty that there will be no procreation as the result of an act of union. Yet the Church has never expected such couples not to have marital congress in such cases.

The issue thus is not whether there is a chance of there being a conception. It is a red herring to suggest that NFP is okay because it is unreliable (always some chance of conception) while contraception is wrong because it is reliable (no chance of conception). In reality, many cases where NFP are used have no objective chance of resulting in conception (we just often can’t identify those cases up front), and in many cases contraceptive sex does have the chance of resulting in conception.

The question is not whether a particular act has the potential for fertility. The question is whether you are doing anything to render the act deliberately infertile. This is what the document I quoted refers to when it speaks of "marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful" (emphasis added).

In the case of an act of NFP the couple is not doing anything to make themselves infertile. They are simply having marital congress when nature makes them infertile.

Similarly, a couple with permanent infertility (due to age or some other cause) is not deliberately making themselves infertile each time they have marital congress. As with the first couple, they are simply having marital congress when they already are infertile.

But when a couple performs a specific act to make themselves infertile (having surgery, taking a chemical, employing a device) then that act is deliberately frustrates God’s design for human sexuality and so is sinful.

(Note the emphasis on "that act." The sinfulness does not extend to future acts of marital congress if the couple repents as they are no longer affirming by their will the act of rendering themselves infertile.)

The issue thus is not whether any given act of union has a chance of producing a child. Nor is the issue whether one ever has children (that is an important issue, but a different one than this). The issue is whether you are doing something to deliberately frustrate the fertility of a particular sexual act.

J.M.S., Hollywood Liberal?

J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5, is an unusually thoughtful guy. Though his political leanings are left of center, he isn’t a knee-jerk as many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood. In a recent usenet post, he addressed the current low state of political discussion in America.

Much of what he says is quite good, and I’d encourage you to read it.

I would take exception to some of what he says, though. For example, regarding chaning the current impasse, he says:

[L]et me now proceed to the problem, and explain why so much of this rests at the feet of the Republican party.

For the last twenty plus years, the Right has hammered away at one consistent theme: that liberals are bad people, that Democrats are just shy of being traitors to America.  You’ve had people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter out there spewing bile into the American spirit of the most hateful, false, and demonizing sort.

What happens is this: those who would like to believe this, do…and thus view the other side with hatred and distrust and the sense that they are traitors. And you don’t compromise or deal with traitors.

On the other side of the political spectrum, you have people who you’ve just called traitors who know that they’re no such thing…and when you call people disloyal traitors, they have a tendency to get real angry about it.  And you don’t compromise or deal with people who impugn your honor like that.

I think that there is a significant element of truth to what JMS is saying here. I don’t listen to talk radio or watch left/right debate TV shows because I can’t stand that attitudes displayed on them. Talk radio is filled with gloating smugness, and the left/right debate shows are filled with people yelling over each other (as well as gloating, question-ducking, and knive-twisting). I want to hear reasoned debate and disagreement, a challenging and testing of ideas, not an unrestrained snark fest.

But I have to question JMS’s laying this at the feet of the Republicans. It wasn’t Rush Limbaugh who started this style of discourse. In some ways, it has been there all through American history (I’ve got a little online project involving that which should be debuting soon), but JMS is right that there has been an uptic in it in the last few decades.

In the full version of his post (which I won’t quote here), he mentions how different things were in Nixon’s day than they are today, and he’s right. On the level of government there was more cooperation and statesmanship displayed by the parties.

But that’s when things were breaking down.

The protest movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s involved a huge amount of frankly irrational invective against "the Establishment" and those with traditional values. The media, by this point, also became infected with a rampant liberalism that it is still in denial about. The reason that Rush took off like he did and became as big a phenomenon as he did was that, as he himself put it, he was the equal time that conservatives had been denied for so long.

If the debate became more polarized after his advent, it was in significant measure because the conservative side was fighting back for a change instead of taking it on the chin as it had in previous years.

I’m perfectly happy to say that Rush and his imitators did things in an unhelpful manner and contributed to worsening the climate of discussion, but when it comes to the basic question of who poisoned the well, liberals dumped a whole load of poison in it before Rush and his ilk came along. Just listen to some of the over-the-top rhetoric that was used in the ’60s and ’70s. Listen to John Kerry’s over-the-top testimony, for that matter.

Now, perhaps one can argue that the problem went back further than this, that the level of irrational invective used by the 1970s liberals was equalled by rhetoric used by prior conservatives.

Perhaps.

We recognize the prior claim. But the reality is that Ragesh 3 has been
Centauri property for over a century. To start a war over blood spilt
so long ago – where does it end? You kill them and take their land.
They kill you and take the land back. On and on and on – a cycle of
hatred!

Seems like I heard that somewhere before.

In the present environment there is plenty of blame to spread around for the low state of social discourse. If there are Rushes and Coulters who wallow in snark, there are liberals who do so as well. Just look at the collective liberal snark fest that happened after the recent election, with the left’s pundits falling all over themselves to insult redstaters in ever new ways.

It seems to me that examining the historical eitology of the origins of the problem is less productive than simply trying to talk, today, in a calm and reasonable manner and urging others to do likewise.

Mrs. JimmyAkin.Org???

As an amateur linguist, I’ve been tickled by some of the blogger lingo from various blogs I’ve been reading.

One of the most interesting idioms I’ve run across is the naming of family members (presumably for privacy and humor reasons) after the blog on which they are mentioned.

Thus Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) has "the Instadad" (his father), "the Instawife" (his wife), and "the Instadaughter" (his daughter).

Similarly, Jim Geraghty of National Review’s Kerry Spot is married to "Mrs. Kerry Spot."

So . . .

If I am so fortunate as to be able to find a bride, will that make her "Mrs. JimmyAkin.Org"?

Contraception Is Mortally Sinful: An Infallible Teaching

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy: A
Catholic friend of mine mentioned her husband recently had a surgical
sterlization procedure. A general discussion on contraception followed,
when I informed her I believed church teaching classifies contraception
as gravely sinful (mortal sin) as an infallible teaching she insisted
that was not the case.

I would appreciate your clarification and supporting sources if I am in fact correct.

No prob.

You are, in fact, correct. The sinfulness of contraception has been infallibly proposed by the Church and its gravity is grave. These facts are reflected in the Vademecum for Confessors, which states:

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of
contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally
rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive
and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital
chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life
(the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal
self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the
transmission of human life [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added].

I’ve italicized the two key sentences here. The first addresses the infallibility issue. Those teachings that the Church has proposed as definitive are those that, in popular speech, have been taught infallibly, either by the Church’s ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium; in the case of this teaching, it has been so taught by the ordinary Magisterium. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a
definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…. the infallibility
promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together
with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all
in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme
Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely
revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions
"must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This
infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation
itself [CCC 891].

The second italicized sentence from the Vademecum indicates the gravity of the sin of contraception and states that it is grave. This means that, when done with adequate knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin
is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full
knowledge and deliberate consent" [CCC 1857].

Canon Lawyer Or Movie Critic?

As so often with the case, that question is a false dichotomy. It isn’t an either/or situation, in the case of canonist Dr. Edward Peters, it’s both/and. Though primarily known as a canon lawyer, Peters has for years been an afficionado of film, though he hasn’t published many reviews in recent times–a fact he needs to fix. In that regard, he’s made a setp in the right direction by beefing up the film section of his website (canonlaw.info).

At the beginning of the section, he explains his philosophy of film:

The key criterion by which to judge a film is simple: does it tell a good story,
and does it tell it well. Thus, writing is the most important factor in a film
(just as it is, though more obviously so, in literature and drama). Direction
and acting are great arts, but they should be, and are in most cases, at the
service of the story. Not every story need be profound, of course; there is a
place for healthy diversion, and some films might serve primarily as settings
for, say, great acting, the way some passages of Waugh are primarily occasions
for exquisite prose. But in the end, most films should be assessed as outlined
above, that is, the way stories have been judged ever since little groups of
frightened foragers, long since banished from Eden, first sat around camp fires
under the stars, waiting for Sunrise.

CHECK OUT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.

What Is It Like To Be A Bat?

That’s the title of a famous paper by philosopher Thomas Nagel. But you don’t have to be a philosopher to wonder about the question. A reader writes:

My 10 year old asked me this questions and since I think you are a bit
of a science fan, I thought I might  ask you.

Can a bat ‘see’ a stealth bomber with its radar or would it fly right
into it?

What do you think?

I’m not an expert here, but I’ll be happy to conjecture (perhaps other readers can fill-in/correct the details via collective brainpower).

It seems to me that the answer to the question depends on two things: (1) how fast the stealth bomber is flying and (2) whether its surfaces reflect, deflect, or absorb sonar.

The sonar issue is key, because bats have sonar (echolocation by sound waves), not radar (echolocation by radio waves). Because sonar is dependent on the speed of sound (not light) the first question is also relevant.

If the stealth bomber is flying faster than the speed of sound then the sound waves from the bat will not have the chance to reach it before that bomber flies into/past the bat, so it won’t see the bomber coming. (NOTE: Stealth bombers usually fly below the speed of sound to avoid creating a sonic boom that they can be tracked by.)

If the stealth bomber is flying slower than the speed of sound then the sound waves from the bat will have the chance to reach it before the plane flies into/past the bat, so the bat might be able to see it (see below). However, the plane is probably so loud that the bat might not need sonar to see it. It might just hear it coming. (That is not to say it would be able to get out of the way in time; bats fly way slower than the speed of sound.)

If the stealth bomber is standing still and turned off (e.g., on a runway, in a hangar) then the speed and noise of the plane wouldn’t matter, leading us to the question of whether the surfaces of the plane reflect, deflect, or absorb sound waves.

The way stealth technology works in planes, such aircraft are made of and covered with materials that absorb radar but not sonar. These might not help hide a plane from a bat. However, not all the radio waves used in radar are absorbed by the plane, so its surfaces are shaped and angled in such a way that they deflect radio waves so that they won’t echo back to radar station. The angle and shape of theser surfaces might also deflect sonar (I don’t know). But even then, the stealth craft’s "invisibility" is not pefect. What the advent of stealth technology did was allow us to reduce a plane’s radar signature to the size of an insect but not to eliminate it entirely.

Bats, however, are good at spotting things the size of insects (that’s what a lot of bat species eat). Also, the angle of the surfaces on a stealth aircraft only deflect stuff from certain angles. Therfore, my guess is that if a plane were sitting still and a bat were flying around it, the bat probably could see it with sonar.

For what it’s worth, I Googled the question of stealth technology and sonar and found references to stealth submarines designed to thwart sonar underwater, but these might not work against bats as water has acoustic properties that are quite different than air (the medium in which bats’ sonar is designed to work).

Greek Pronunciation

A reader(‘s son) writes:

I am a 14-year-old high schooler and am trying to teach myself ancient
Greek. I am using the Athenaze series.

Because I have no teacher to help with pronunciation, I was wondering if
you could help me with some questions I have. My mom reads your blog and
said that you are skilled at ancient languages. I know you are very busy
and hope you can find the time to answer my questions.

Here are my questions:

I want to know if the Greek letter chi is pronounced as the letter "k" is
pronounced, or as the letter combination "ch" in the English language?

It’s neither. The letter chi represents a sound that we either don’t have or that we barely use in standard American English. Ancient Greek textbooks will often say that this is like the "ch" in the Scottish pronunciation of "Loch" (a very harsh sound) but in modern Greek it’s more like the "h" on the front of "Hugh" (a less harsh sound). You also hear it compared to the "ch" in the German pronunciation of "Bach."

I know that it is pronounced as a softer sound in modern Greek but don’t know for sure whether it was harsher or softer in ancient Greek. Any of the above pronunciations (i.e., from "Loch," "Bach," and "Hugh") will get you in the ballpark, though.

A similar question for the letter phi and the letter psi.

The first is easy. Pronounce phi just like the letter "f."

Psi is a little harder for English-speakers at first. It is pronounced like the letters "ps" in the word "lips." You can’t drop off the "p" sound (as we do in English when we say "psychiatrist" and pronounce it /sai-kai-ah-trist/). Neither should you exaggerate the "p" sound and say "pea" (like the Animaniacs do when they say "pea-sai-kai-ah-trist"). It’s just like the "ps" in "lips" or "cops" or "chaps."

The difficulty is caused by the fact that, though we use this sound in English, we don’t put it on the front of words. The Greeks did. To get used to saying it on the front of a Greek word (like "psuche" [meaning "soul"]), you might try adding an extra syllable on the front of the word as a kind of "training wheel" that you can take off once you feel comfortable putting the sound up front. For example, you might say /cops-oo-chay/ (note that this has the chi-sound in it!)  and then drop the /co-/ to arrive at the correct pronunciation, /psoo-chay/.

Thank you very much. If you can suggest another series that might provide
more help than the Athenaze series, I would appreicate it.

I’m familiar with Athenaze, but I haven’t used it myself, so I don’t have a feel for how the program works. That makes it hard to recommend something better. If it were me, though, I’d probably try learning either Koine or modern Greek first, since there are very good tools for learning these (see recommendations below), and then afterwards learn the kind of classical that Athenaze covers.

My mom bought me the book on heiroglyphics that you recommended last year
and I really enjoy it. Actually I like languages a lot. My school doesn’t
offer Latin or Greek, so I am studying German. I am the top student in
the school.

Congratulations! Incidentally, your German will serve you well in learning Latin and Greek. The noun system in Latin and Greek works the same general way that the German noun system does (i.e., it has cases and declensions). Also glad you like the hieroglyphics book!

Also, can you recommend a resource to learn koine Greek? I am interested
in learning that so I can study the old Bible texts.

The best resource to really start studying Koine Greek in a serious way is William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. It offers tremendous help to the student that other courses don’t offer.

On the other hand, if it’s a little advanced for you, you might try Mounce’s Greek For The Rest Of Us or James Found’s Basic Greek In 30 Minutes A Day.

MORE KOINE GREEK RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.

The best resource for starting to learn modern Greek is Pimsleur. You might try one of the smaller, cheaper sets and see if you like the program.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your language studies!

Viktor Or Viktor Victor In Ukraine?

KIEV (DAILY PLANET) – Street demonstrations continued in the Ukraine today as Ukrainians demonstrated in the street to express their outrage over the hotly disputed election in their state.

At issue was whether Viktor Yushchenko or Viktor Yanukovych was elected president of the Ukraine last week.

Numerous Ukrainians charged voter fraud and ballot manipulation at the polls. A consensus among the demonstrators, however, suggested that the largest factor producing election confusion was the similarity of the two candidates’ names.

"It’s just too confusing!" said demonstrator Viktor Yushkovych. "I meant to vote for Viktor Yushchenko, but I ended up voting for Viktor Yanukovych!"

"He’s right!" said fellow demonstrator Viktor Yanuchenko. "I wanted to Viktor Yanukovych to be victor, but I voted for Viktor Yushchenko. We’ve got to have candidates with less similar names!"

The Ukraine situation has made a striking impact on the world of the arts.

Mediums all over the world reported that the ghost of Oscar Wilde is now working on a new play based on the disputed election: The Importance Of Being Viktor.

Meanwhile, Julie Andrews is planning a remake of her 1982 film Victor/Victoria. Originally set in turn of the century Paris about a woman pretending to be a female impersonator, the new film Viktor/Viktor will now be set in present day Kiev and will tell the story of a woman pretending to be two identically-named politicians from different parties.