M
manualman
Guest
Sorry Palamite,
Diarrhea is not a conditon indicative of a healthy human body. Infertile times during the month ARE a part of a normal healthy woman’s cycle.
Your analogy falls to pieces because it implies that women are always fertile except when ill health brings an infertile time. In reality, God demonstrably equipped the woman’s body such that it is NOT fertile MOST of the time. As noted by others, the human woman, unlike most animals, is often interested in sexual activity even when NOT fertile. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that God has no problem with married couples enjoying the unitive aspect of sex even though it WON’T result in a baby every time.
Since the physical evidence supports this view, it is NOT reasonable to suppose that married couples must always TRY to ensure that their sex is fertile. For the record, the Catholic Church makes no such claim. (But you argue that this is the logical outcome of Catholic teaching) Catholic teaching on NFP is simply that observing the way God created woman’s fertility and making disciplined decisions about sometimes abstaining from a wholesome act is enourmously different from engaging in the act, but artificially intervening in the outcome.
You do a darn good rationalization, but you throw out all your credibility when you claim that Catholic teaching on contraception is something new foisted on mankind in the 20th century. Any literate person with a computer or a library can easily find out that ALL significant christian groups considered contraception sinful until the Anglicans created your prized rationalization circa 1920 at Lambeth. It is the contraceptive-permissive position that is the new invention foisted on unsuspecting people, not the Catholic position.
Additionally, your facts don’t add up. I’m no biology expert, but the fact that conception is the union of sperm and egg was hardly a new and exciting discovery when the Anglicans became the first to cave on contraception. Nor are condoms an invention of the 1900’s. Science has certainly advanced since the early fathers, but it is NOT necessary to discard the insights of early fathers simply because their vocabulary was limited by their knowledge. YOU assume they would agree with you today, but what I have read does not support this position at all. The only new idea on this issue is that one can attempt to artificially remove the procreative nature from sex and still enjoy (undamaged) the full benefits of sex in a healthy marriage. That idea would have been laughed off as silly 100 years ago in serious christian circles and it is no coincidence that our society has embraced the natural outcome of contraceptive thinking: that sex is merely a pleasurable recreational activity with no serious moral or religious meaning.
P.S. Sneering about a dearth of patristic support for current Catholic teaching on contraception is a bit akin to claiming human cloning is OK since neither the bible nor the fathers condemn it. It simply wasn’t the same sort of issue when the fathers wrote. No pill, no IUD, condoms would have been obnoxiously intrusive animal intestines. Furthermore, it was an easy case to make back then since there was no massive movement pushing contraceptive acceptance. As always, it takes controversy to force clarification and detailed explanation of issues that were taken for granted when everybody more or less agreed.
Diarrhea is not a conditon indicative of a healthy human body. Infertile times during the month ARE a part of a normal healthy woman’s cycle.
Your analogy falls to pieces because it implies that women are always fertile except when ill health brings an infertile time. In reality, God demonstrably equipped the woman’s body such that it is NOT fertile MOST of the time. As noted by others, the human woman, unlike most animals, is often interested in sexual activity even when NOT fertile. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that God has no problem with married couples enjoying the unitive aspect of sex even though it WON’T result in a baby every time.
Since the physical evidence supports this view, it is NOT reasonable to suppose that married couples must always TRY to ensure that their sex is fertile. For the record, the Catholic Church makes no such claim. (But you argue that this is the logical outcome of Catholic teaching) Catholic teaching on NFP is simply that observing the way God created woman’s fertility and making disciplined decisions about sometimes abstaining from a wholesome act is enourmously different from engaging in the act, but artificially intervening in the outcome.
You do a darn good rationalization, but you throw out all your credibility when you claim that Catholic teaching on contraception is something new foisted on mankind in the 20th century. Any literate person with a computer or a library can easily find out that ALL significant christian groups considered contraception sinful until the Anglicans created your prized rationalization circa 1920 at Lambeth. It is the contraceptive-permissive position that is the new invention foisted on unsuspecting people, not the Catholic position.
Additionally, your facts don’t add up. I’m no biology expert, but the fact that conception is the union of sperm and egg was hardly a new and exciting discovery when the Anglicans became the first to cave on contraception. Nor are condoms an invention of the 1900’s. Science has certainly advanced since the early fathers, but it is NOT necessary to discard the insights of early fathers simply because their vocabulary was limited by their knowledge. YOU assume they would agree with you today, but what I have read does not support this position at all. The only new idea on this issue is that one can attempt to artificially remove the procreative nature from sex and still enjoy (undamaged) the full benefits of sex in a healthy marriage. That idea would have been laughed off as silly 100 years ago in serious christian circles and it is no coincidence that our society has embraced the natural outcome of contraceptive thinking: that sex is merely a pleasurable recreational activity with no serious moral or religious meaning.
P.S. Sneering about a dearth of patristic support for current Catholic teaching on contraception is a bit akin to claiming human cloning is OK since neither the bible nor the fathers condemn it. It simply wasn’t the same sort of issue when the fathers wrote. No pill, no IUD, condoms would have been obnoxiously intrusive animal intestines. Furthermore, it was an easy case to make back then since there was no massive movement pushing contraceptive acceptance. As always, it takes controversy to force clarification and detailed explanation of issues that were taken for granted when everybody more or less agreed.
