Do you believe that practicing ABC is morally permissible? Answer if your Catholic only please.

[Pug]

So if the intent doesn’t matter in this case, then you’d be suggesting that wearing a condom is a sin in and of itself, completely independent from the INTENTION involved in wearing a condom.

I don’t see why wearing a rubber glove over a penis is a mortal sin. If we’re not talking about intent here, then that’s all it really is - wearing a piece of rubber over a body part.

… And this, alone, is a mortal sin that would send someone to eternal damnation???

I’m out of time for the evening (I owe spouse some time), but I will answer this portion. I don’t think it would be a sin to wear a rubber glove on the penis. Just that act could be whatever, like it was the only item you could cover it with and you are naked and it is freezing out. I don’t think the intrinsic evil is the wearing of the rubber in itself. That is neutral.

I think maybe you have set up the question in your head with the rubber being a means to an end, and then that end in turn is the means to another end (spacing children). In order for that string of things to be acceptable, the middle means must be okay, not just the means at the start and the end at the end.

 

[LaSainte]

But with the towel, we are failing to execute the most basic of steps in our control to complete the act in a way suited to procreating, provided nature/our bodies/God provides the remainder. We are not responsible to ensure the fertility of the act, just its basic suitability to the purpose. We make a reasonable attempt to do what is suitable for the situation, but then other factors control the experienced outcome. Having sex when the woman is past childbearing is a reasonable attempt to be suitable, but other factors will control that outcome.

I truly wish I could set your mind at ease on this. I can only answer you with my understanding here, LaSainte. I felt that I did have the answer to your previous post, which was why I spoke, but this post of yours is harder for me.

For example, you might say that withdraw is in itself suited to procreation, since sometimes this method produces a child. But I don’t think it is reasonable to select this as a completed act. The act truly seems incomplete to me at that stage according to how things of themselves wish to be.

Thanks for your patience and effort Pug. You do help and give me things to turn around and around in my head. I appreciate all of your posts and most especially, the kindness and charity with which you post them. That alone does more than any amount of explanation could ever do, because even if I don’t grasp the teaching or the reason behind it, it is wonderful to see someone with such strong faith live it with such grace without being harsh or judgmental. Thank you

 

[Debora123]

I think maybe you have set up the question in your head with the rubber being a means to an end, and then that end in turn is the means to another end (spacing children). In order for that string of things to be acceptable, the middle means must be okay, not just the means at the start and the end at the end.

So then what is in the middle?

 

[Debora123]

Thanks for your patience and effort Pug. You do help and give me things to turn around and around in my head. I appreciate all of your posts and most especially, the kindness and charity with which you post them. That alone does more than any amount of explanation could ever do, because even if I don’t grasp the teaching or the reason behind it, it is wonderful to see someone with such strong faith live it with such grace without being harsh or judgmental. Thank you

I agree. I have encountered PUG in multiple other threads, and he (or she) has always been very kind to me.

Thank you Pug! :hug3:

 

[choose_to_love]

@LaSainte: re “does not have to be every time”

I am sure you have heard this before, but how would the other marriage vows work out if they did not apply every time? Like the vow to be faithful? Would you want a spouse, or a God, who was faithful most of the time, or more often than not, or who was generally faithful over the course of the relationship?

@deb: hey, where am I on the kind-o-meter? Tone is so hard to get right on the internet. Feedback is always good.

 

[Debora123]

@deb: hey, where am I on the kind-o-meter? Tone is so hard to get right on the internet. Feedback is always good.

I recognize your screen name but can’t remember our encounters.

That’s probably a good sign though… it’s a lot easier to remember the mean, screaming people than it is the nice, humble people.

 

[LaSainte]

@LaSainte: re “does not have to be every time”

I am sure you have heard this before, but how would the other marriage vows work out if they did not apply every time? Like the vow to be faithful? Would you want a spouse, or a God, who was faithful most of the time, or more often than not, or who was generally faithful over the course of the relationship?

@deb: hey, where am I on the kind-o-meter? Tone is so hard to get right on the internet. Feedback is always good.

I don’t think being “open to children” in the marriage vows translates directly into “Do you promise that your husband will ejaculate inside your vagina every time you have sex?”. I guess I missed that in pre-Cana

 

[Neildown]

ABC is immoral according to the Roman Catholic Church - sex is for the purpose of creating new life - birth control contradicts that intention. If you don’t want babies, don’t have sex.

 

[Nate13]

@Le Saint
Hmm lets see so your saying you don’t see the difference between monitoring our bodies and other contraceptive acts such as the pill, condom, ect… correct?

From what I have seen its all about the Onan passage where he “wastes his seed”. There are people that disagree with the Church’s interpretation of this passage but the fact is that interpretation hasn’t ever changed. Martin Luther even maintained the meaning of this passage as the Church has taught it even with all the other things he disagreed with the church about. John Calvin did as well. Both the early church father’s Augustine and Thomas where very clear in their interpretation of the passage.

The wording itself says “wastes”. I don’t believe “wastes” can ever have a positive meaning, nor does it in this passage. So even if you don’t buy in to what the Church has said the meaning of the passage is since its beginning, you cannot deny the fact that God in no way is indifferent to the action of spilling seed during the sexual act, which includes pulling out, putting it in a condom, or in other words actions during the sexual act that prevent the semen from achieving their purpose.

NFP differs from this in that you are doing nothing during the sexual act to frustrate its intentions. God is the one who made our bodies and allowed for times of fertility and infertility and as far as I know has said nothing about having sex during less fertile times. The Bible is God’s word and the Church was established to safe guard it and it’s meaning. Trust that the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leads to the truth

I believe the difference in the action that Pug was referring to relies on what is in accord with natural law. I haven’t done enough research into this idea to be able to even start explaining. If you like philosophy though it might be worth your time.

 

[LaSainte]

@Le Saint
Hmm lets see so your saying you don’t see the difference between monitoring our bodies and other contraceptive acts such as the pill, condom, ect… correct?

From what I have seen its all about the Onan passage where he “wastes his seed”. There are people that disagree with the Church’s interpretation of this passage but the fact is that interpretation hasn’t ever changed. Martin Luther even maintained the meaning of this passage as the Church has taught it even with all the other things he disagreed with the church about. John Calvin did as well. Both the early church father’s Augustine and Thomas where very clear in their interpretation of the passage.

The wording itself says “wastes”. I don’t believe “wastes” can ever have a positive meaning, nor does it in this passage. So even if you don’t buy in to what the Church has said the meaning of the passage is since its beginning, you cannot deny the fact that God in no way is indifferent to the action of spilling seed during the sexual act, which includes pulling out, putting it in a condom, or in other words actions during the sexual act that prevent the semen from achieving their purpose.

NFP differs from this in that you are doing nothing during the sexual act to frustrate its intentions. God is the one who made our bodies and allowed for times of fertility and infertility and as far as I know has said nothing about having sex during less fertile times. The Bible is God’s word and the Church was established to safe guard it and it’s meaning. Trust that the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leads to the truth

I believe the difference in the action that Pug was referring to relies on what is in accord with natural law. I haven’t done enough research into this idea to be able to even start explaining. If you like philosophy though it might be worth your time.

Onan may have been killed for “wasting” his seed, but his was a very special circumstance. It was important for HIS LINE in particular to propagate children- for reasons not the least of which was that Jesus Christ would eventually be descended from his Tamar’s line.

I see nowhere in this story that is prohibitive of ALL contraceptive sex for all time. That is quite a sweeping statement. Should we all not wear clothes of mixed fabric? Should rape victims be forced to marry their rapists? Why has the Church locked onto this particular story as a reason to prohibit this practice for all time when there are other, MUCH more specific directives in the OT that are simy ignored? I don’t get it.

 

[Pug]

How did this get to be about ejaculation? The ejaculating into a towel comment is just gross!

To stop in the middle of the marital act seems to be the exact opposite of being fully self-giving. I can’t think of anything more depressing than if my husband wanted to have sex with me but not “all the way”. This is so sad.

I think someone brought it up to discuss coitus interruptus and how that differs from other methods of spacing births. With me, there would be some risk that I would respond by feeling used if my husband practiced that, so I do understand you.

 

[Pug]

I agree. I have encountered PUG in multiple other threads, and he (or she) has always been very kind to me.

Thank you Pug! :hug3:

Thank you Debora123 and LaSainte both for your encouragement. I went to work today with a smile even though it is a zillion degrees here and my car doesn’t have air conditioning.

(Pug=she)

 

[Paxvobis]

I suppose I just don’t see the moral difference between ejaculating into an infertile vagina and ejaculating into a towel. Technically, the man is ejaculating into a place where conception is impossible.

The difference between the two should be obvious. When “ejaculating into an infertile vagina”, neither you nor your partner are taking any measures to prevent conception. When “ejaculating into a towel”, you are taking meaures to prevent a conception from occurring.

Furthermore, the chance still exists when with a woman that conception might take place, however small. With a towel the chance doesn’t exist.

Honestly, I think this is just a slippery slope argument against homosexual sex, masturbation, etc. As long as the Church holds the front at ejaculation only in the vagina, it draws a clear line for them. The problem is that it doesn’t make amwhole lot of rational sense knowing what we know now about conception and timing and even the biological makeup of the semen itself.

The Church doesn’t teach that every time someone has sex they must conceive a child, only that every time someone has sex, the sexual act must be open to conceiving a child. Foreplay is permissible, for example, but only if ejaculation takes place inside the vagina.

This is a doctrine of the Church, a dogma of the faith, and by such virtue cannot change.

 

[Paxvobis]

Onan may have been killed for “wasting” his seed, but his was a very special circumstance. It was important for HIS LINE in particular to propagate children- for reasons not the least of which was that Jesus Christ would eventually be descended from his Tamar’s line.

I see nowhere in this story that is prohibitive of ALL contraceptive sex for all time. That is quite a sweeping statement. Should we all not wear clothes of mixed fabric? Should rape victims be forced to marry their rapists? Why has the Church locked onto this particular story as a reason to prohibit this practice for all time when there are other, MUCH more specific directives in the OT that are simy ignored? I don’t get it.

Of course rape victim shouldn’t be forced to mary their rapests and we should not only wear clothes of mixed fabric.

The Church’s ban on contraception and on coitus interruptus doesn’t just come from Onan, but from the consistent tradition of the Church dating back two thousand years. Church teaching, unlike Protestant teaching, doesn’t come from the Bible alone.

Looking at the writings of the Fathers, we see they held the same opinion of contraception that Catholicism holds today:

To quote a tract on this site regarding the regulation of births:

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

When it comes to the story of Onan, we interpret the story as it has been interpreted by Christians universally until 1930, when the first of the Protestant churches allowed contraception. We don’t just come up with new interpretations all the time.

And when it comes to your question “Why has the Church locked onto this particular story as a reason to prohibit this practice for all time when there are other, MUCH more specific directives in the OT that are simy ignored?” the reason is that the Old Jewish Laws are now mostly null and void with their completion in the Gospel. They were never intended to be final, definitive statements on the eternal law of God, whereas the New Covenant is.

See Romans 3:20-31 as well as the writings of the Fathers on the applicable nature of the Law of Moses since the promulgation of the Gospel.

See Jeremias 31:31-33 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Fathers, and the words of institution in the Roman Liturgy on the completion of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant of Christ’s Precious Blood.

 

[Nate13]

@Le Sainte

Onan may have been killed for “wasting” his seed, but his was a very special circumstance. It was important for HIS LINE in particular to propagate children- for reasons not the least of which was that Jesus Christ would eventually be descended from his Tamar’s line.

I see nowhere in this story that is prohibitive of ALL contraceptive sex for all time. That is quite a sweeping statement. Should we all not wear clothes of mixed fabric? Should rape victims be forced to marry their rapists? Why has the Church locked onto this particular story as a reason to prohibit this practice for all time when there are other, MUCH more specific directives in the OT that are simply ignored? I don’t get it.

I see so none of the laws from the Old Testament hold any meaning any more? Obviously we shouldn’t acknowledge the ten commandments anymore… I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but what is your point? That the Church was given the authority to determine which laws of the Old Testament still pertained? Can you find any of the early church fathers who said, “oh, that’s just an old testament ritual that doesn’t apply anymore” in reference to Onan? If you don’t acknowledge the Church’s authority to determine which laws still pertain, who’s authority do you acknowledge? We have the holy spirit to help guide us and help us find the truth, but individually lots of people under the guidance of the holy spirit have found different meanings in this passage so who is right and why? The fact is the Church has been incredibly consistent on the meaning of this story and its implications, and both Martin Luther and John Calvin who had no love for the Church stringently upheld this meaning themselves. Why did the meaning of this passage change when all of sudden birth control in mass came to the table in 1930? Talk about hidden agenda’s.

 

[LaSainte]

The difference between the two should be obvious. When “ejaculating into an infertile vagina”, neither you nor your partner are taking any measures to prevent conception. When “ejaculating into a towel”, you are taking meaures to prevent a conception from occurring.

Furthermore, the chance still exists when with a woman that conception might take place, however small. With a towel the chance doesn’t exist.

The Church doesn’t teach that every time someone has sex they must conceive a child, only that every time someone has sex, the sexual act must be open to conceiving a child. Foreplay is permissible, for example, but only if ejaculation takes place inside the vagina.

This is a doctrine of the Church, a dogma of the faith, and by such virtue cannot change.

Actually, it is not a dogma.

 

[Nate13]

Actually, it is not a dogma.

yeah a little ad lib going on there but you get the point of what he was trying to say and we already know you disagree with the Church’s stance. However you failed to answer why the teaching on the Onan passage all of a sudden changed in 1930, and why you are prepared to turn your back on 1900 years of Church teaching in favor of it?

 

[LaSainte]

@Le Sainte

I see so none of the laws from the Old Testament hold any meaning any more? Obviously we shouldn’t acknowledge the ten commandments anymore… I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but what is your point? That the Church was given the authority to determine which laws of the Old Testament still pertained? Can you find any of the early church fathers who said, “oh, that’s just an old testament ritual that doesn’t apply anymore” in reference to Onan? If you don’t acknowledge the Church’s authority to determine which laws still pertain, who’s authority do you acknowledge? We have the holy spirit to help guide us and help us find the truth, but individually lots of people under the guidance of the holy spirit have found different meanings in this passage so who is right and why? The fact is the Church has been incredibly consistent on the meaning of this story and its implications, and both Martin Luther and John Calvin who had no love for the Church stringently upheld this meaning themselves. Why did the meaning of this passage change when all of sudden birth control in mass came to the table in 1930? Talk about hidden agenda’s.

I never said that none of the OT laws are still applicable, however, the Onan story was never even a LAW. It was a simple story about ONE man that got blown up into this all-time ban on contraception, even though the story in no way indicates that this is why he was struck town by God. Onan did so many things wrong in this story, the least of which was pulling out, but nobody ever gives it any context. They just say,“Well pulling out must be bad because Onan got killed”. This doesn’t seem like a stretch to anyone else?

Regarding Augustine, his views of sex were hugely shaped by his depraved past. He thought ANY sex that did not lead to procreation was sinful. He would have hated NFP. All of the Church fathers would have balked at the idea of NFP.

 

[Nate13]

In terms of Augustine I talked about that on another thread I believe so I won’t repeat it here as its not necessary for the discussion. Also my argument doesn’t rely on any one theologian. The Catholic Church has always taught the exact same meaning of the Onan passage and this meaning made it through the protestant reformation and was reiterated by the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin. You keep dodging the question by pulling out little details you don’t like. You can not refute what the Catholic Church has taught since the beginning and continues to teach on this passage, and what even Protestants believed for most of the time since they were separated from the Church. Are you attempting to argue that the Catholic Church has changed its mind in reference to this passage at some point? If not how can you not agree that in taking the position you have you are turning your back on 1900 years of the Church teaching on this passage? My point here is you have to trust someone, and to me 1900 years of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is hard to beat.

Also, while it was not a “law”, God struck him down for it. Whether its a law or not has no bearing on whether its right or wrong.

 

[LaSainte]

In terms of Augustine I talked about that on another thread I believe so I won’t repeat it here as its not necessary for the discussion. Also my argument doesn’t rely on any one theologian. The Catholic Church has always taught the exact same meaning of the Onan passage and this meaning made it through the protestant reformation and was reiterated by the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin. You keep dodging the question by pulling out little details you don’t like. You can not refute what the Catholic Church has taught since the beginning and continues to teach on this passage, and what even Protestants believed for most of the time since they were separated from the Church. Are you attempting to argue that the Catholic Church has changed its mind in reference to this passage at some point? If not how can you not agree that in taking the position you have you are turning your back on 1900 years of the Church teaching on this passage? My point here is you have to trust someone, and to me 1900 years of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is hard to beat.

Also, while it was not a “law”, God struck him down for it. Whether its a law or not has no bearing on whether its right or wrong.

God struck Onan down for reasons much more complicated than coitus interruptus. He was basically a rapist, married Tamar because he was told to and then, when she was sleeping with him ONLY for the purpose of having children, he REPEATEDLY pulled out to avoid getting her pregnant (how she didn’t know he was doing this and the writers of the Bible did, I have no idea). Jesus was destined to come from this line as is reiterated in the NT. No wonder God wanted him out of the way.

And I’m not “turning my back” on Church teaching. I never thought this made any sense. It’s a huge over-simplification that would not be an acceptable interpretation if this were any other story or any other book. It doesn’t fit.