Conscience question

[ahs]

I guess I just never thought the biblical arguments were that compelling. Two becoming one flesh-o.k. that makes sense, but I still don’t see how that can be read as “semen in vagina, every time”. The same with the Onan story. That just doesn’t seem so much lIke it is condemning the act for all time as much as in his particular case.

I** see much more evidence **for not wearing clothes of 2 different fabrics, or for forbidding circumcision than I do for this. Of course, ***I understand ***that the Church is the interpreter of the Bible, but as a literature student, **I cannot for the life of me see **where they get this stuff. **I can’t think of anyone without an agenda **who would interpret these passages that way.

Perhaps the bulk of the confusion is coming from a deeper issue than “conscience”. You are looking at Church Teaching from YOUR perspective, and judging its validity or sensability based on how YOU feel about it or understand it. Perhaps it would help to look at it a different way…as a creature of God looking to his/her God’s Truths and obeying them, regardless of understanding, and then working to understand these Truths over time.

Also, the answer to your initial question has been answered…several times…and referred back to several times. Post #186 was a good one, with other references linked within. Here is yet another:

Conscience is…catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32755

 

[Jaaanosik]

I believe he was asking if you thought eros and agape could not be present at the same time. I.e if its eros its not agape, and if its agape its not eros…

Correct, and it seems to me they can be present at the same time.

 

[Debora123]

As far as natural law goes, I’ll admit I’m no philosopher, but it seems that sometimes it applies and other times it doesn’t. For example, according to natural law, shouldn’t it be a sin not to breastfeed your child? The breasts have one main function:to nourish our young. Breast milk contains antibodies and immunities that cannot be reproduced in formula. It is documented that breast fed children are healthier throughout childhood. And yet, it is perfectly within my right to completely ignore that function, run out and get breast implants that may destroy my ability to breast feed my baby, and voluntarily choose NOT to give my child the best start in life just because I feel like it. Doesn’t this go against the natural law? Why is it not a sin?

This is a good point… I’d like to see the logic on this as well, if anyone can shed some light. Thanks.