**Referring specifically to the passage you quoted, Lev. 21:17-20: **
It is true that at least some Jews believed at various points in time that illness, suffering, and handicapping conditions were imposed by God as a punishment for personal sin. Remember the Gospel reading of Jesus healing the man born blind and how the question was asked, “Was the man blind because of his parents’ sin or because of his own sin?” So assumption of sinfulness could have been one reason to refuse priestly service to handicapped/disfigured men in Old Testament times.
This issue may also affected by the idea of wanting to give God the best we have to offer. For example, the lamb or kid goat offered for the Passover sacrifice must be young, healthy, and
unblemished, a prefigurement of Jesus’ sinlessness making him the perfect sacrifice in atonement for sin. I’ve heard that at various points in our Catholic Church history, handicapping conditions/disfigurements – even something as simple as being tone-deaf and therefore unable to carry a tune to sing the Mass properly – could eliminate a man from consideration for the (Catholic) priesthood, although I’m sure bishops selecting candidates nowadays are more understanding.
But I believe the relevance of that particular passage (Lev. 21:17-20) to the topic of BIRTH CONTROL is to point out that crushed (damaged) testicles and the resulting sterility/infertility was considered a DEFECT, so surely no one in his right mind would want to deliberately and voluntarily do that to himself – permanent sterilization through vasectomy or tubal ligation or temporary sterilization through hormonal methods like the Pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, etc. See the point?
On the more general question, “Why do we refer to Old Testament teachings sometimes, but at other times say they don’t apply to us anymore?”:
My understanding is that MORAL TEACHINGS from the Old Testament still apply, e.g. the Ten Commandments. However, specifically Jewish customs like circumcision of newborn males, specific ways to wash hands and dishes to “purify” them, no eating shellfish or pork, no marital relations during menstruation and seven days thereafter, etc. no longer apply after Jesus’ coming.
To me, this sounds similar to how the Catholic Church cannot change settled doctrines in matters of FAITH AND MORALS, but is free to change customs or matters of discipline, e.g. from a married priesthood in early Church times to current requirement of celibate priesthood, what days are Holy Days of Obligation or not, how many hours to fast before receiving Holy Eucharist, what kind of fasting and abstinence regulations to observe Lent, etc.
Is this distinction between teachings on faith and morals – what to believe and what to do regarding duties toward God and duties toward our neighbor – clear? Though many examples are clear-cut, I’m sure we could come up with other examples that might be confusing somewhere in the middle. Maybe bring this question over the “Scripture” Forum?
Best wishes,
Christine
