condoms vs nfp. what's really the dif??

[cfrancis]

I agree in both cases you are stacking the odds up against getting pregnant only using different methods, which is why I said in the first place if the Church is trying to prevent us from being an obstacle to God’s plan both NFP and condoms should not be acceptable.

Yet the Church teaches that not every couple can have a child at a certain time. Physical, Economic, Psychological, even Social conditions can be reasons to not have a child (see Humanae Vitae, 10). But the reasons must be grave and the couple must pray for guidance to realize the situation is grave.
Yet the Church knows that we are fallible, sinful. And so to help us realize that “God’s will be done, not ours” the couples are to use NFP but are to come together without barrier, knowing that - short of abstinence - pregnancy is possible.
To say that the Church teaches that every couple must have 14 kids is not true.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Ah yes. It didn’t take long for this argument to come up!
First, your statement implies you see no relationship between the nuptial union and the Trinity.
Second, I do say “yes”, and know many large families (as I have 6 children, “large” for me = more than six) who, by secular standards, should be despairing and miserable because they do not have the “stuff” that society says makes us happy. But their happiness is not in things; yes, times do get tough for them, but their focus is on God, their faith, and getting their children to heaven.
That is the reality of it, and it is totally beautiful and all about giving.

I also know several families who have no children or one or two and desparately want more, so they use NFP. Some of these couples most likely can’t have children for physiological reasons; but there have been several births through the use of NFP.

I find your example ironic; on the one hand, Debora argues that NFP is MORE reliable than condoms, therefore condoms allow more of God’s will. Yet your story has NFP not being reliable, that the couple should rely on condoms. One of you has to be wrong.

The fact that you know some couples who are happy and poor with 7 kids is a vivid example. Sure, couples like that exist. The Duggars have 19 kids and are ecstatic. Like I said, those people CHOSE voluntarily to be open to conception and so they are happy. My grandmother on the other hand, cried every time she got pregnant after #4, and was SO relieved when she finally had to go on ABC for health reasons. She, like many, many others, don’t use NFP because they think it’s beautiful and right, but because the Church says they must or they will burn in hell. The second these people have some sort of dispensation, they are the first people in line at the pharmacy when it opens.

There are so many people with more kids than they can afford who are living in abject poverty without enough food to eat or clothes to wear. Just look at the number of recent foreclosures for an idea. One in 4 kids in the U.S. goes to bed hungry.

Also, I am not arguing that condoms are more effective than NFP, that depends on the person. I am arguing that there is no difference in morality between the 2 and that a couple should be free to decide what works for them, and also that the Church’s argument against contraception and oral sex as being against God’s natural plan for sex is inconsistent with all of her other teachings (such as those on eating and nutrition).

 

[cfrancis]

The fact that you know some couples who are happy and poor with 7 kids is a vivid example. Sure, couples like that exist. The Duggars have 19 kids and are ecstatic. Like I said, those people CHOSE voluntarily to be open to conception and so they are happy. My grandmother on the other hand, cried every time she got pregnant after #4, and was SO relieved when she finally had to go on ABC for health reasons. She, like many, many others, don’t use NFP because they think it’s beautiful and right, but because the Church says they must or they will burn in hell. The second these people have some sort of dispensation, they are the first people in line at the pharmacy when it opens.

**There are so many people with more kids than they can afford **who are living in abject poverty without enough food to eat or clothes to wear. Just look at the number of recent foreclosures for an idea. One in 4 kids in the U.S. goes to bed hungry.

We can trade anecdotal evidence all day long - that won’t change our opinions. I can say that many, many others embrace the Church’s teaching on this and have seen their marriages grow and flourish because of it.
But your use of the word “poor” is not a word these families would use to describe themselves. You’d have to define “poor” for me to agree with you that they are indeed “poor”.
BTW, if I understand you correctly, are you saying your grandmother used NFP?
As to the part I highlighted: I don’t believe you are saying that this problem is caused by the practice of NFP. Without looking at the stats, and unless you are claiming that the majority of these children are in two-parent homes, I say the problem is sex outside of marriage. As for the foreclosures, again, without looking at the data, many of these are folks who paid too much for their house when the market was up.
Your data, while possibly true (again, I’ve not seen the data and trust your presentation of it), has little bearing on our discussion.

Also, I am not arguing that condoms are more effective than NFP, that depends on the person. I am arguing that there is no difference in morality between the 2 and that a couple should be free to decide what works for them, and also that the Church’s argument against contraception and oral sex as being against God’s natural plan for sex is inconsistent with all of her other teachings (such as those on eating and nutrition).

If you do indeed place the sexual union in the marriage bed on par with functions such as eating, going to the bathroom and breathing, then your argument is sound.
As I proposed, that the Church regards sex as highly as it does is evidenced by its actions to maintain the dignity and holiness of it, much like you take pains to protect what is sacred and valuable to you.
Your comment leads me to ask: do you hold all Church teachings to be on the same level? Are the doctrines of the Diety of Christ and His Full Human Nature on par with, say, what the Church says about private Marian revelations?

 

[jilly4ski]

But there is a difference in morality. The means used is the difference. Let us expand your food metaphor: I can limit my intake if food in order to lose weight (NFP=limiting sex) or I can purge after I eat (ABC=I can still have sex but not suffer the consequences). Oral sex is masturbation, masturbation is also a disorder of our sexual faculties. This is also what sex with a contraceptive is.

There is no difference in the sex a couple trying to conceive but having sex in their infertile time and a couple that is trying to avoid and having sex during their infertile time, it is exactly the same. But there is a huge difference in a couple not having sex during their fertile time and those having contraceptive sex during what would have been their fertile time. In fact there is a difference between any couple having relations during their infertile time and and a couple having contraceptive sex during their infertile time.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

BTW, if I understand you correctly, are you saying your grandmother used NFP?

Well, not in its current form, but she did her best with the knowledge they had at the time. 8 kids later…

If you do indeed place the sexual union in the marriage bed on par with functions such as eating, going to the bathroom and breathing, then your argument is sound.
As I proposed, that the Church regards sex as highly as it does is evidenced by its actions to maintain the dignity and holiness of it, much like you take pains to protect what is sacred and valuable to you.
Your comment leads me to ask: do you hold all Church teachings to be on the same level? Are the doctrines of the Diety of Christ and His Full Human Nature on par with, say, what the Church says about private Marian revelations?

No, I wouldn’t say all Church teachings are on par with each other. I believe that history is enough to tell us what the Church thinks about sex. Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive. It is pretty clear NOT that the Church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, but quite the opposite-as something that needs to be done in such a perfect way as to sanitize it and “clean away” the baseness of it. We are told to put the sperm here but not there and be attracted to your spouse but don’t lust and it’s o.k. not to want kids but you have to have them anyway and you can only use an ovulation kit but not a condom, etc. etc. etc.

I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?” The Church has pushed all these feeling of the dirtiness and wrongness of sex onto her parishioners to the point where some people can’t even enjoy sex with their spouses at all. REAL, loving, spontaneous sex between spouses without guilt or paranoia is almost impossible for a great many people because of this. It’s sad

 

[Debora123]

Well, not in its current form, but she did her best with the knowledge they had at the time. 8 kids later…

No, I wouldn’t say all Church teachings are on par with each other. I believe that history is enough to tell us what the Church thinks about sex. Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive. ** It is pretty clear NOT that the Church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, but quite the opposite-as something that needs to be done in such a perfect way as to sanitize it and “clean away” the baseness of it. ** We are told to put the sperm here but not there and be attracted to your spouse but don’t lust and it’s o.k. not to want kids but you have to have them anyway and you can only use an ovulation kit but not a condom, etc. etc. etc.

**I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?” ** The Church has pushed all these feeling of the dirtiness and wrongness of sex onto her parishioners to the point where some people can’t even enjoy sex with their spouses at all. REAL, loving, spontaneous sex between spouses without guilt or paranoia is almost impossible for a great many people because of this. It’s sad

Amazing post, and I TOTALLY get what you’re saying and have seen it here many many times.

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
God did NOT kill Onan for contraception….Biblical scholars agree with this and even the Church doesn’t use Onanism as an argument against contraception anymore

False. Those “biblical scholars” have no authority against Christ’s Church – "with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

The lack of the Catholic mind, which is the mind of Christ, is really quiet bizarre and shows the frightful confusion which developed after Vatican II, not because of, due to the secularism and relativism abroad in the world.

**ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text–spilled his seed on the ground–and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church–and nature–that contraception is mortally sinful.
The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

The airy fairy idea of rejecting Christ and His Church for the cacophony of selfism, opinions, feelings, desires, prejudices – behaving like a tin god – is just what the chaos in the world exhibits.

THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED, November 1996
By Fr Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

“Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).”

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin and specifically teaches what St Augustine teaches – that God killed Onan for contraception. That is the grave sin.

“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” [45]

1. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

cfrancis
The NFP couple’s attitude is, “We believe this is the right decision, but your will be done, God, not ours.”

Excellent.

The dissenters are unable to answer why God created women with cycles which have infertile periods, while not commanding us to not use them. For serious reasons He has told us we can – for that’s why He founded His Church to teach us right from wrong.

 

[Debora123]

No, I wouldn’t say all Church teachings are on par with each other. I believe that history is enough to tell us what the Church thinks about sex. ** Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive. It is pretty clear NOT that the Church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, but quite the opposite-as something that needs to be done in such a perfect way as to sanitize it and “clean away” the baseness of it.** We are told to put the sperm here but not there and be attracted to your spouse but don’t lust and it’s o.k. not to want kids but you have to have them anyway and you can only use an ovulation kit but not a condom, etc. etc. etc.

I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?” The Church has pushed all these feeling of the dirtiness and wrongness of sex onto her parishioners to the point where some people can’t even enjoy sex with their spouses at all. REAL, loving, spontaneous sex between spouses without guilt or paranoia is almost impossible for a great many people because of this. It’s sad

:thumbsup:Amazing post, and I TOTALLY get what you’re saying and have seen it here many many times.

 

[Vico]

No, I wouldn’t say all Church teachings are on par with each other. I believe that history is enough to tell us what the Church thinks about sex. Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive. It is pretty clear NOT that the Church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, but quite the opposite-as something that needs to be done in such a perfect way as to sanitize it and “clean away” the baseness of it. We are told to put the sperm here but not there and be attracted to your spouse but don’t lust and it’s o.k. not to want kids but you have to have them anyway and you can only use an ovulation kit but not a condom, etc. etc. etc.

I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?” The Church has pushed all these feeling of the dirtiness and wrongness of sex onto her parishioners to the point where some people can’t even enjoy sex with their spouses at all. REAL, loving, spontaneous sex between spouses without guilt or paranoia is almost impossible for a great many people because of this. It’s sad

“Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible…”

And he gives reasons in 1 Cor 7 32-34:

“I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”

“… and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive.”

Augustine countered the dualist view of the Manicheans, which was that body is the work of the devil and the propagation of the body is evil. Augustine writes in The Good of Marriage:
“Marriages also have the benefit that sensual or youthful incontinence, even though it is wrong, is redirected to the honorable purpose of having children, and so out of the evil of lust sexual union in marriage achieves something good.”

Lust is the problem not sex. Keep in mind that lust is a strong desire for sexual gratification, and may be disordered, as the Catechism states:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

None of the following that you listed are a sin, they are not intentional:

I had an erotic dream about my husband.
I got aroused while washing myself in the shower.
I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife.

 

[Paul1961]

ThoughtfulOne. Deborah123.

:thumbsupitto.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

A great summary of the historical understanding of Onanism from the Straight Dope and a history of the Church’s attitude toward sex:

**The earliest interpretations were straightforward. What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations. Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant. The text emphasizes the social or legal setting, with Judah describing what Onan has to do and why. The plain reading is that Onan’s sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir. **

When religious authorities try to legislate morality, however, the simple meaning of the text is rarely satisfactory. By the rabbinic period (around 100 BC to 300 AD), levirate marriage was no longer widely practiced. Rabbis and early Christian fathers sought other explanations for Onan’s sin, focusing more on the sexual act itself, the spilling of the seed. Jews and Christians adopted sharply different interpretations.

The rabbis interpreted Onan’s transgression as birth control through coitus interruptus. (In a wonderful euphemism, the Jewish commentator Rashi calls this “threshing within, winnowing without.”) They decided what Onan had done was wasteful but not a severe sin; the punishment should be left to God. More generally, the rabbis recognized that intercourse did not always result in pregnancy, and that there could be a purpose to intercourse beyond simple reproduction, namely pleasure.

The Christian church ultimately took a different stance. After four centuries of competition with groups now considered heretical, the Christian church determined that man’s sexual duty was to procreate and replenish the earth, period. Sex for pleasure was weakness, if not outright sinful.

While the Onan story was a factor, the driving force behind Christianity’s evolving attitude toward sex was the New Testament, coupled with the pessimistic certainty that the end of the world was imminent. In the 5th century, St Augustine wrote that while sex is essential to procreation and thus good, sin has corrupted human passion, so copulation for pleasure alone is immoral.

The female role in reproduction was poorly understood–people thought men did the important part, namely planting the seed, and the woman was just the flower pot. Hence, spilling seed (loss of semen) was a grievous sin. This attitude emerged after Cummean, an Irish abbott of the 7th century, set forth penances for various sexual sins. Theodore of Tarsus, also in the 7th century, distinguished onanism from masturbation–he felt onanism was a form of contraception, not just self-pleasuring.

**Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote extensively about sexual subjects; his thinking dominated Christian teaching for centuries. First, he taught that any sexual activity that did not lead to procreation was deviant, even within marriage. Sex without procreation was lust, directed solely at venereal pleasure. **Other sexual sins included adultery, rape, and incest.

Second, he set up a category of four “sins against nature” or “unnatural vices.” These are considered more sinful than illicit sex, because they violate the laws of nature as well as the laws of society and the Church. In order from least to worst sinful:

-Ejaculation without coitus, i.e., masturbation
-Deviation from the “natural position” (face to face contact, female on her back)] [At least we got rid of this rule! ]

-Copulation with an “undue sex” (i.e., homosexuality)
-Copulation with non-human creatures, i.e., bestiality.

Don’t you think that the earliest, JEWISH interpretation of this passage is probably the most accurate?

The dissenters are unable to answer why God created women with cycles which have infertile periods, while not commanding us to not use them. For serious reasons He has told us we can – for that’s why He founded His Church to teach us right from wrong.

God also created animals with menstrual cycles. We don’t KNOW why God created us all this way, but that doesn’t give us the right to go around throwing out our own explanations for it with no evidence (biblical or otherwise) to suit our own purposes.

 

[Abu]

Just as “interpretations” by Jews and others that Jesus the Christ is not the divine Son of God are in error, we look to Christ who gave us His Church to show us the Way, Truth and Life. Christ’s Church has Her Sacred Scriptures, which She declared as to what books are contained therein, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium – not every Tom, Dick or Harry.

St Paul commands that husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her” (Eph 5:25). Further, that “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband” (1 Cor 7:3).

Now that the fact of Onan’s death by God for contraception has been established, it is good to know that the natural moral law is upheld by Christ’s Church. How could it be otherwise?

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.

My preference is to use the term Natural Birth Regulation (NBR). It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.

As Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

 

[mark_a]

I’ve said it before, maybe on this thread. Here goes again:

Most real men will not use a condom with his wife. He will put her on the pill. Spontanious abortions and breast cancer be damned.

Adulterous husbands use condoms for ego affairs and hookups, for his own piece of mind that his affair will not become procreative, so that he will not be “caught”.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Just as “interpretations” by Jews and others that Jesus the Christ is not the divine Son of God are in error, we look to Christ who gave us His Church to show us the Way, Truth and Life. Christ’s Church has Her Sacred Scriptures, which She declared as to what books are contained therein, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium – not every Tom, Dick or Harry.

St Paul commands that husbands are to love their wives “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her” (Eph 5:25). Further, that “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband” (1 Cor 7:3).

Now that the fact of Onan’s death by God for contraception has been established, it is good to know that the natural moral law is upheld by Christ’s Church. How could it be otherwise?

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.

My preference is to use the term Natural Birth Regulation (NBR). It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.

As Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

I think the writing of the Onan passage makes it pretty clear to the reader, and if that wasn’t clear enough, we have the interpretation of the Jews who existed at the time it happened, to whom this holy book belongs, and who were actually under the law in question. It only makes sense that they would have the more accurate interpretation of this particular passage. This is not one of those passages that only comes to fruition in the context of the New Testament, but it is a very cut and dried story, the meaning of which the Jews at the time of the writing understood.

Yes, the Catholic Church is the one true Church instituted by Christ, but that does not mean that it is not possible for the Church leaders to misinterpret a passage in the Bible according to its own personal opinion and agenda. This does not fall under infallibility. Logic dictates that the original interpretation is the most correct. The correct interpretation of this story is not a matter of faith or morals and is not necessarily error-free.

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
Yes, the Catholic Church is the one true Church instituted by Christ, but that does not mean that it is not possible for the Church leaders to misinterpret a passage in the Bible according to its own personal opinion and agenda. This does not fall under infallibility.

How unthoughtful that a teaching from an Ecumenical Council which refers to the Encyclical *Casti Connubii *should be cavalierly dismissed as “Church leaders to misinterpret a passage in the Bible according to its own personal opinion and agenda.” How unthoughtful not to know that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25).
Further, the definitive doctrine against contraception in *Cast Connubii *is infallible.

From Vatican II itself, we know that all Catholic consciences must always be conformed to that divine law interpreted by the Magisterium and submissive to the Magisterium.
For such dissenters:
“must always be conformed to” means “must always obey” the divine law.
“submissive” allows of no wriggling out of the obligation to follow the doctrine of the Magisterium

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)

Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930):*Casti Connubii *infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” [45]

“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

 

[cfrancis]

No, I wouldn’t say all Church teachings are on par with each other. I believe that history is enough to tell us what the Church thinks about sex. Paul clearly thought it was something to be avoided if possible and Augustine thought it was pretty repulsive.

I’d love to see your evidence for this, though I’m not surprised by your presenting this. I expect you’ll pull out the “Paul is misogynistic” card next!

It is pretty clear NOT that the Church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, but quite the opposite-as something that needs to be done in such a perfect way as to sanitize it and “clean away” the baseness of it.

DOn’t know what you’ve read or where you get your info, but your opinion is ill-formed.

We are told to put the sperm here but not there and be attracted to your spouse but don’t lust

Yeah - darn that Jesus guy for telling us lust is a sin. I’m sure you feel He’s wrong on many other issues as well.

and it’s o.k. not to want kids but you have to have them anyway

Huh??? Now you imply that NFP isn’t effective at all. So your argument is that the condom is more effective, as that way “it’s o.k. not to want kids” and not have them because the condom will prevent pregnancy. Your argument makes no sense.

I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?”

Given the stats on Catholics and contraception, the “average” Catholic has no problem ignoring the Church on this issue. Doesn’t make those people right, but it does reveal the lack of substance to your statement.

The Church has pushed all these feeling of the dirtiness and wrongness of sex onto her parishioners to the point where some people can’t even enjoy sex with their spouses at all. REAL, loving, spontaneous sex between spouses without guilt or paranoia is almost impossible for a great many people because of this. It’s sad

What’s sad is that you do indeed place sex on the same level as eating, bathing, etc…

 

[cfrancis]

I think the writing of the Onan passage makes it pretty clear to the reader, and if that wasn’t clear enough, we have the interpretation of the Jews who existed at the time it happened, to whom this holy book belongs, and who were actually under the law in question. **It only makes sense that they would have the more accurate interpretation of this particular passage. ** This is not one of those passages that only comes to fruition in the context of the New Testament, but it is a very cut and dried story, the meaning of which the Jews at the time of the writing understood.

Yeah, the Jews also clearly saw the Trinitarian references in Genesis, too.

 

[cfrancis]

A great summary of the historical understanding of Onanism from the Straight Dope and a history of the Church’s attitude toward sex:

Straight Dope - really? Nice opinion - little substance. Here, I can do that too:
“Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote extensively about sexual subjects; his thinking dominated Christian teaching for centuries. First, he taught that sex was reserved for marriage and that lust could enter marriage, making lustful sex sinful just as it is outside of marriage. Second, he commented on the intrinsic beauty of sex within marriage.”
See, no citations, no references - man, this is easy!!!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thoughtfulone, regarding your post 164:

You have mischaracterized Paul and Augustine, friend. Paul appears to have chosen celibacy as a practical matter, which he alludes to briefly. Naturally the apostolic mission of the early Church was extremely demanding on commitment, time, and the sheer physicality of the travel. A workable marriage was pretty incompatible with his 24/7 occupations (which included being a tent-maker as a steady source of income, as well as evangelizing); taking himself as an example he therefore ‘recommended’ celibacy to his brothers with a similar itinerant and sacrificial lifestyle, but acknowledged that celibacy is not for everyone, given the power of the sex drive.

Augustine was by no means repelled by sex. He was one lusty guy who thoroughly enjoyed sex (too much so ) Today we would classify him as having a “sexual addiciton.” His later “repulsion,” if you can call it that, was to his inordinate attachment to his licentious lifestyle which had been consuming him and ultimately left him by his own admission “restless,” incomplete. What he did – or we could say what God did, with Augustine’s cooperation – was to transform this physical passion into an equally consuming passion for God.

I get your point about the obsessiveness of some Catholic lay people. Many times such people are overly scrupulous about non-sexual matters as well. Some people over-extend and over-internalize the Church’s regulatory categories to a preoccupation with categories and self-consciousness about any area which the Church regulates.

I’m not addressing your assertion that the difference between NFP and barrier methods is “splitting hairs,” but whether you believe it is or is not, the above three points which I refute in your post do not have the support that would justify a theory that the RCC encourages people to regard sex as “dirty” and base.

 

[mark_a]

A great summary of the historical understanding of Onanism from the Straight Dope and a history of the Church’s attitude toward sex:

Got a link to the entire article?