This is circular. Essentially you are arguing that birth control is immoral because it violates natural moral law (i.e. it is immoral because it is immoral). You cannot assume its immorality inorder to prove it ito be immoral.
This does not characterize the resoning process of why contraception is immoral. Rather, it is immoral because it does not allow for the good associated with sex to be excercised. Thus, if in marriage the sex act is primarily for the procreation of the species then to make null that purpose would be to cause disorder in the sex act itself. Thus, the use of contraception is an act that violates the natural good of sex.
One of my previous posts dealt with why having lots of children might no longer be a biblicle imperative. I also think that the importance of sex can change throughout a marriage. Especially for a couple who has already had children the focus could be on giving to each other. Furthermore by your logic if a couple is not capable of having children they should not have sex, which not even the Catholic Church supports. For instance I have read on previous posts that if before becoming a Catholic one of the partners had been sterilized, it would not be immoral to engage in marital relations.
Biblical imperative aside the nature of sex is procreative the spiritual aspect of sex is unitive. All sex acts must have both of these aspects because there is no seperation in our person between body and soul.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore you. I haven’t looked at the link you provided yet, but I should let you know that as a non-Catholic I do not acknowledge the infallibility of Sacred Tradition. Scriptural infallibility is the only ultimate authority on doctrine I believe in, and in reading the letters of Paul you can see how important it is not to confuse the wisdom of even the holiest of men with that of God. Paul for example at certain points in his letters clarifies that certain of his teachings originatd from within himself and were not given by the Lord. This humility reflects that even though he is probably one of the most qualified moral teachers ever, he does not consider himself infallible except when inspired by God. And also in Paul’s writings, the importance of not placing unnecessary burdens on believers is revealed as being extremely important. For example when the Jews relying on their own traditions thought it prudent to shackle gentiles with the same dietary restrictions they observed, Paul and the other early church fathers were quick to reject such an approach. That said, I do not believe Catholics are trying to burden people with their contraception restrictions, but are coming from a sincere and heart felt position that they believe will foster a closer and more meaningful relationship between a married couple and between married individuals with God, and I completley respect that. I happen to disagree with this position, and think that it may in some cases have the opposite effect, but I recognize that I may be wrong in my interpretation of the scriptures which is why I enjoy discussions such as this.Why have I been ignored, … again?
I made a valid point, and it should at least be addressed.
If you don’t believe that the Bible says birth control is wrong, then listen to those who were taught by the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus, who was told the fullness of truth by God the Father (and no, I don’t mean that Jesus wasn’t fully God while on earth).
Dooit’n doo doo doo doo, feelin’ groovy.
Onan’s death was directly related to the spilling of his seed - an act that took the pleasure of sexual relations, but contra-cepted it’s natural fruit and consequence, the conception of a child.
My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.
The use of a condom is a contraceptive act, the practice of NFP is the gathering of information to properly inform a decision as to when to have marital relations. You cannot judge NFP as “catholic contraception” because it is a NON-ACT, whereas all forms of contraception - whether chemical, barrier, or surgical - are direct acts against the natural form of marital relations. The Church regards this matter in two different ways. One is to look at the reason for postponing separately from the process that a couple may use to accomplish that goal. In other words, the Church judges both process and act separately. The Church recognizes that a couple may have a “grave” or “serious” reason to postpone trying for another child for a time, and to assist in that goal, the Church recommends that the couple know their fertility, and simply abstain from relations - a Non-Act.
I’ve covered this point in previous posts (see post 28 in particular) if you care to look back. Nice to have you in on the discussion.
Abstaining is not a requirement of NFP, it is the consequence of deciding you have a “serious reason” to postpone a pregnancy. NFP is not the cause, only the process by which the decernment as to when to abstain may be made. Before modern methods of NFP, married couples routinely abstained, for the greater good decided upon. That is called the exercise of Christian Prudence, and a mature expression of sexual self-mastery. Again, NFP is not the “burden”, the circumstances of life that require prudence in hoping for another child are at play.
Yet modern chemical BC is both unnatural and unhealthy. Recently the WHO, of all people, listed the standard Multi-phasic birth control pill as a known carcinogen.
Yet her behavior was a direct act of disobedience - as was Onan’s
Acts.5
And how does that change my point?
Yes, the penalty was for “Onan’s refusal to grant his brother’s wife her rights” The point was that the fact that he spilled his seed was merely the way in which he denied his brother’s wife, he would have been just as culpable if he refused sex with her period, and thus this passae does not inherently lead one to conclude birth control is immoral.
Now now…if he had simply refused her - not entered in to her at all - all he would have gotten was a lost sandle and spittle on the face.
I have already responded to this argument in my rebuttal to the article which makes the same point.
Hmm… It’s seems Jesus experienced this same problem.
I would not have written you if I thought your response clear enough, or adequate enough.
I was not trying to end the discussion. I just thought you had not read my response to the issue because you did not address my point that God’s punishments do not always conform to Levitical prescriptions and that in some cases they are harsher and in some lighter and I cited scriptural evidence. This line of reasoning refutes the notion that because God’s punishment for Onan was death (not the Levitical punishment proscribed for not fulfilling his obligation to his sister in law) it means that Onan’s sin was not soley his failure to do his duty to his sister in law. While this analysis does not eliminate the logical possibility of your interpretation being correct it does require you to bring knoledge or bias from outside the scriptures to form that deduction. And I agree that this scripture is the linchpin of the Catholic Scriptural justification for its views on birth control, and since (for the reasons I have shown) I do not believe that its interpretaion follows logically from what is in the text I disagree with the Catholic position. You mentioned that my position lacked clarity; if this post did not clear up the confusion I would be happy to clear it up if you could tell me specifically what you had difficulty understanding. I am enjoying our discussion and God Bless
