Kreeft – “Sexual Reconnection”

Sexual Reconnection by Peter Kreeft

Interesting Kreeft lecture. Nothing new that he hasn’t said before, but standard Kreeft, nonetheless: enlightening and entertaining.

One thing that I wish he would have talked more about how our scientific knowledge about human sexuality changes our attitudes about sex. Specifically, Kreeft addresses the idea of contraceptives and critiques it’s ideological background of being “liberated” from babies and families (note: that’s a cliffs’ cliffs notes summary). But, if I know my wife’s monthly cycle and choose to have sex only on specific times that I know will not produce a baby, does that reflect the same underlying ideology? The motivation seems the same, only the method differs.

I know I’ll get a response from someone. 😛


4 thoughts on “Kreeft – “Sexual Reconnection”

  1. Hmm, that is a very interesting point on the motivation for having sex at a certain time of the month rather than use contraceptives. Would the former, according to Kreeft, be acceptable when the latter is not? Interesting question. I remember having a conversation about this about three years ago with some good Roman Catholic friends of mine and I, jokingly, asked if it would make a difference if I wore socks on my feet.

    I think a partial response would take the form of: knowing how your wife’s biology functions and acting accordingly is not immoral but rather the natural thing to do (hence, natural family planning). In this regard it is not primarily one’s intent not to have children, as one is still “remaining open to having children”, but rather… I have no idea! 🙂

  2. To be honest, it’s actually Jennie’s objection to Kreeft’s lecture and I thought it was such a good point that I would post it. 🙂

  3. @benedico:
    Your possible counter argument commits the natural fallacy.

    Rather than thinking in terms of natural vs. artificial and positing one as morally better than the other, it would be better to think of a way in which using or not using artificial contraceptives fits or doesn’t fit with the (revealed) purpose of marriage and sexuality. (Ryan, I seem to recall a lenghty email correspondence…)

    Rogue Leader: *set your s-foils in attack position*

    • Why would fitting or not fitting with the (revealed) purpose of marriage and sexuality fare any better? Who, besides those of like-minded bent, would agree with you? Appealing to revelation is a tricky and risky business when dealing with a generally secular problem (although, granted, one may have genuine and powerful theological motivations in the background). That’s the natural law theorist in me.

      And, actually, I deny that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy; at least, not in every use and form of claims to nature. G.E. Moore was wrong and so was Hume.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s