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

[Elizabeth502]

No, I’m not saying that for sainthood in general, but I have seen MANY people who had a misspent youth and who were drug addicts or alcoholics who became born again. They often seem to get the same “high” out of religion that they used to get from sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. It often seems that they simply trade one addiction for another.

They do. But that (fundamentalist Protestantism) is a different category than the mystical experience that often accompanies true holiness. One is emotional; the other is spiritual. Converts from fundamentalist or evangelical Protestantism often describe this fleeting “high” they witnessed or experienced, which ultimately was not spiritually lasting.

Of course, if someone has an actual mystical experience, their newfound fervor is explicable, but I think it is something to watch out for.

The Church always looks out for that.

You also have men who are simply holy, such as Pope John Paul, who are generally humble and don’t feel the need to go to massive extremes, but are content to live a life of faith and devotion.

God only works through the personality of each of us; He created it; it is a manifestation of his own creativity. Again, a person converting from one direction of passion to another direction is not likely to divest himself of passion in general. There have been saints who were moderates, relatively speaking; others who were ‘extremists.’ There have been those who lived almost their full earthly lives on the practical level of fidelity; others whose lives were virtually taken over by mysticism. (Naturally a lot of the latter were already contemplatives in Orders.) Just FYI, JP2 used ‘the discipline’ on himself. It is not my opinion that he was never a person of extremes.

 

[mark_a]

Mark A,

I didn’t see anybody post a link to where the article came from. It was written by Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil Adam’s online “auxiliary”. Cecil Adams is, according to the site, “the world’s smartest human being”. The list of general sources is given there, and the article is signed by “Dex”, and said to be edited by Ed Zotti, but there are no page references.

straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

Thanks for taking the time to get this for me!!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Just FYI, JP2 used ‘the discipline’ on himself. It is not my opinion that he was never a person of extremes.

Really? I will never understand people who do this…

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
neither Pope John Paul 2 in his writings nor the current Catechism uses the Onan story as evidence that contraception is wrong….misinterpreting scripture to justify it is not o.k.

Another thoughtless one who claims that Christ misinterprets Sacred Scripture through His own Church to whom He gave His authority!

Excellent posts #183, #186, #191, Vico.

The Church teaches that God killed Onan for contraception. Of course many “scholars” get it wrong and mislead others.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Another thoughtless one who claims that Christ misinterprets Sacred Scripture through His own Church to whom He gave His authority!

Excellent posts #183, #186, #191, Vico.

The Church teaches that God killed Onan for contraception. Of course many “scholars” get it wrong and mislead others.

The Church is not infallible with regards to interpreting scripture, especially Hebrew scripture.

 

[mark_a]

Mark A,

I didn’t see anybody post a link to where the article came from. It was written by Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil Adam’s online “auxiliary”. Cecil Adams is, according to the site, “the world’s smartest human being”. The list of general sources is given there, and the article is signed by “Dex”, and said to be edited by Ed Zotti, but there are no page references.

straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

Well, the opening question and the way it is presented reveals which side of the fence the writer is on. And the closing paragraph.

From the Bible:

Judah got a wife for Er, his first-born; her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first born, was displeasing to the Lord and the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, “Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.” But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste whenever he joined with his brother’s wife, so as not to provide offspring for his brother. What he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He took his life also.

Some questions:

But Er, Judah’s first born, was displeasing to the Lord and the Lord took his life.

What did Er do? Or not do?

But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste whenever he joined with his brother’s wife

This statement implies it happened more than once. The New Jerusalem Bible has a footnote that confirms this. Does it matter if Onan was habitual? Was Er’s displeasure to the Lord the same as Onan’s?

From the article:.

What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations.

While accepting the bennies.

Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant.

Why so?

The plain reading is that Onan’s sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir.

All except for this part: “What he did was displeasing to the Lord”

Rabbis and early Christian fathers sought other explanations for Onan’s sin, focusing more on the sexual act itself, the spilling of the seed.

I have read that the belief at the time was that the man’s seed actually transmitted life into the woman and “spilling” it was actually allowing the life of the child to die.

They decided what Onan had done was wasteful but not a severe sin; the punishment should be left to God.

Does not square well with the snip from above.

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

I’d like to see a source for that one. Although it could come in handy again as world wide jihad flourishes.

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.

Makes no sense especially since the article claims the Jewish leaders 1200 years before understood that every act of intercourse does not lead to babies.

Lastly, I can remember two Baptist friends of mine arguing about masturbation. I remember one of these friends quoting something to this effect: “It is better to cast your seed into the belly of a whore than to cast it on the ground for the ants to eat.”

I never did figure out where he got that quote.

 

[mark_a]

The Church is not infallible with regards to interpreting scripture, especially Hebrew scripture.

That’s not at all how it works. The Church is infallible pretty much when it says so.

 

[mark_a]

Point:
straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

Counterpoint:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

 

[Thoughtfulone]

That’s not at all how it works. The Church is infallible pretty much when it says so.

That’s super-convenient.

I was always told in matters of faith and morals, and even then only regarding .)ex cathedra statements by the Pope 2.) Solemn declarations by ecumenical councils 3.)Constant magisterial teachings.

 

[davidv]

That’s not at all how it works. The Church is infallible pretty much when it says so.

You are right this is not how it works. The Church is infallible when it teaches the truth as it was received from the Holy Spirit.

If you think it is because the Church “says so”, you set up a strawman, invalid argument.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You are right this is not how it works. The Church is infallible when it teaches the truth as it was received from the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn’t EVERYONE be infallible when teaching the Truth as it was received by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
The Church is not infallible with regards to interpreting scripture, especially Hebrew scripture.

The disinformation is endless, and the error of earlier Hebrew rejection well-known.

Readers should be aware that Christ’s Church through Divine guidance chose which writings actually comprise the Sacred Scriptures. The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage !V in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
“When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture—the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek—which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture.’ (Mark Shea).

Dei Verbum, 10, Vatican II:
“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that. Neither Tom, Dick, Harry nor self-styled Thoughtfulone can change that.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The disinformation is endless, and the error of earlier Hebrew rejection well-known.

Readers should be aware that Christ’s Church through Divine guidance chose which writings actually comprise the Sacred Scriptures. The books that actually are the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage !V in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
“When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture—the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek—which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture.’ (Mark Shea).

Dei Verbum, 10, Vatican II:
“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

Pope Pius XI has interpreted that Onan was killed by God for contraception, well established from St Augustine, and the CCC refers us to that. Neither Tom, Dick, Harry nor self-styled Thoughtfulone can change that.

So you believe the Church to be absolutely infallible with regards to interpreting scripture and that the Church has never erred in doing so?

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
So you believe the Church to be absolutely infallible with regards to interpreting scripture and that the Church has never erred in doing so?

Faithful Catholics believe what Christ teaches through His Church, which does not teach error through Her Magisterium.

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (*Dei Verbum *10, Vatican II).

The Church teaches that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25).

At the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II the then Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal William Baum in the Synod’s Final Report stated:
“Above all, the exegesis of the original sense of Sacred Scripture, which is strongly recommended by the Council (cf. DV 12) cannot be separated from the living Tradition of the Church (cf. DV 9), nor from the authentic interpretation of the ecclesiastical Magisterium (cf. DV 10).”
[LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE]](LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE])​

 

[mosher]

I haven’t yet trudged through all 15 pages of this discussion but I’m wondering if there has been any mention of the distinction that the Church makes between Contraception and Birth Control?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Faithful Catholics believe what Christ teaches through His Church, which does not teach error through Her Magisterium.

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (*Dei Verbum *10, Vatican II).

The Church teaches that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25).

At the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II the then Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal William Baum in the Synod’s Final Report stated:
“Above all, the exegesis of the original sense of Sacred Scripture, which is strongly recommended by the Council (cf. DV 12) cannot be separated from the living Tradition of the Church (cf. DV 9), nor from the authentic interpretation of the ecclesiastical Magisterium (cf. DV 10).”
[LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE]](LT68 - POPE PAUL VI AND THE TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE])​

So the Church was correct for over 1750 years in the teaching/scriptural interpretation that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

1564 – Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8): the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology.

1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to Scripture is not (and never has been) overturned.

1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. In this book, Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism is infallible. He concludes: (1) Alexander VIII’s Speculatores was a papal act of supreme authority by which the pope, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, that heliocentrism was false; (2) heliocentrism was false because the Church declared it a heresy, and whoever says an opinion is heresy ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith; and, (3) infallible teachings, even those ex-cathedra, do not generally generate any fresh obligation of faith, but protect and vindicate one that already exists.

 

[mark_a]

That’s super-convenient.

I was always told in matters of faith and morals, and even then only regarding .)ex cathedra statements by the Pope 2.) Solemn declarations by ecumenical councils 3.)Constant magisterial teachings.

Right. And who said so?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Right. And who said so?

Haha. Gotcha

 

[chain]

Odin is not my favorite quote for why masturbation or ABC is a sin. Odin committed plenty of sins.

Odin most likely lusted. By taking his pleasure without acting like a husband - he essentially committed adultery. He openly disobeyed God telling him to give his brother an heir. And my personal favorite - he was attempting to steel the inheritance of his brother (if his brother had an heir, the inheritance would pass to the heir. If his brother died without it would pass to the closest male relative (father, or in this case brother).

 

[Vico]

So the Church was correct for over 1750 years in the teaching/scriptural interpretation that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

…

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 states that regarding the heliocentric system that the authors of the judgment against it did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, Bellarmine wrote:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.