Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[christianlove]

Let me form a position by way of my natural reasoning as a logical author inspired with Spirit, given the perception and authority to reflect by the Creator, and in search of truth. The unitive aspect of intercourse, that is the bond a man and woman shared together during intimacy, should be fulfilled as much as the procreative aspects and one or the other will often be frustrated. Yet the frustration of the procreative function alone is considered a sin by the CC. What if the unitive aspect is frustrated, is this not just as much a violation of the Sacrament of Matrimony? By natural law, it is right for a man and woman to want to have intercourse for unitive purposes as much as for procreative purposes. By this reasoning, when a spouse refuses to have intercourse for any reason despite the needs or desires of the other to be unified, there is frustration of the unitive function of intercourse, but this is not a sin. Likewise then, there is nothing abnormal or unnatural about not inseminating a woman when she is fertile in order to avoid a conception thereby frustrating the procreative function; using the same logic, this is not a sin but simply a fact of life. I tell you it is difficult to always satisfy both. Indeed, only when truly the devoted man and a woman decide to make life can they share both aspects. In that moment of beautiful union and fulfillment of a complete embodiment of the unitive and procreative function of intercourse, a blessing is bestowed upon the couple as a gift of life. This life is made from God and He gives responsibility to the parents.
Despite the rational concepts above, the violation of the procreative means is clearly defined as a sin by the CC. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines sin as “an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as ‘an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law. Sin is an offense against God: ‘against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight (Ps 51:4) 8.’ Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods (Gen 3:5) 9,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God 10.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation (Philippians 2:6-9) 11 (CCC1849 and CCC1850) 12.”
The letter of Galatians is particularly accomplished on listing sin as it pertains to the flesh: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21) 13.” However, I take fault with anyone who interprets these effects as straightforward. Consider as an example, “anger” as a sin that cause one to not inherit the Kingdom of God. Did Jesus not become angry when he found the tax collectors in the temple (John 2:14-16) 14? Anger itself is not a sin! So the act of “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like” are to be taken into consideration with the outcome and harm done to brotherly love by such. These are just human emotions and shortcomings that only become sin and cause the loss of salvation when there it becomes a failure of the “genuine love for God and neighbor (CCC1849) 12?”

1. Ps 51:4
2. Gen 3:5
3. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 14,28L 41,436.
4. Philippians 2:6-9
5. CCC1849 and CCC1850

 

[christianlove]

So then, let us consider only one specific and most natural form of birth control (besides abstinence) that is condemned by the Church, coitus interruptus, and if it stands up to the designation of sin. I have already stated above that there is no violation of “reason, truth, and right consciousness” when two people, united as one flesh by marriage, agree to “frustrate” the unitive or procreative process of intercourse. They are reasonable and intelligent creatures created by God and make decisions together as one as the truth and right conscience they have defined in their own personal church called: the family. So then it is just the opposite of “[wounding] the nature of man and [injuring] human solidarity,” and the ability of the married couple to make these decision to affect their life creates a natural function for them and solidarity in their own personal church: the family. By all means, let us support families!
Finally I ask for anyone to explain to me how the process of making love with one made flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone and in God’s own image, despite frustration of procreative processes, can in anyway cause a “failure in genuine love for God and neighbor” while fulfilling a unitive purpose. Certainly, there is no “perverse attachment to certain goods” in this case of mutual consenting sexual intercourse with a spouse. Why must the process of self-giving sex handed over freely to each other through the sanctity of marriage be made so complicated?
What is more frustrating is that coitus interruptus is considered a mortal sin! Therefore, this unitive process, withholding the procreative aspect, performed between two human being who share the God given blessing of love which makes then one flesh is believed to “…destroy charity in the heart [of the couple] by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him (CCC1855) 15.” I cannot understand how the embracing of two halves to become one, in the presence and blessing of God, whether there is procreation as a means or not, destroys love and desire to be God’s child. There is no malice or intent to give up God for sex. God has given us this ability to love each other. Why does wasting seed/egg make it a violation of His law?
The Word and Law of God
Let us turn then to the Word of God himself. We seek the wisdom of God and want to follow His will. Indeed much prayer and time is spend praising Him and letting ourselves go to Him so that His will can be done on earth through us by following His law. This is the purpose of Man (Eccles 12:13) 16. We turn to the Church in all the wisdom she has gained over the millenniums, through her close relationship with God, and her union with Christ as his bride, being guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Truth as it is proclaimed through the Sacred Scripture, Gospel, and New Testament. The Church holds the right to interpret the scriptures because Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, has opened her mind to their truths (Luke 24:45) 17. However, it is also true that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) 18. Furthermore, let us remind ourselves of who the Church is. It is the Body of Christ, which is to say those people who are made brothers and sisters by their union with the Father as his heirs through Christ (Romans 8:17) 19. So then the Church, the followers of Christ, interprets the Scriptures with the open mind given to us out of love from Christ as the Holy Spirit. We are feeling with our hearts and want to understand how God wants to use us to fulfill His ultimate plan here on earth. It is not for us to know any of the reasons why, but just to do what He asks of us. The CC is a sturdy and awesome foundation for the Church to take root and develop ourselves in holiness and worship, but certainly does not determine how the Holy Spirit moves in individuals. Only God does that.

1. Gal 5:19-21
2. John 2:14-16
3. CCC1855
4. Eccles 12:13
5. Luke 24:45
6. 2 Peter 1:20
7. Romans 8:17

 

[christianlove]

I will interpret the Scriptures as the LORD my God has given me the power and wisdom to do so for His glory and according to natural law. In this way I have examined the CC’s interpretations. Gen. 38:9-10 20 is presented as the most condemning passage for coitus interruptus according to the CC1.
Gen. 38:9-10 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.
In this way, it is felt that we should not withdraw during ejaculation because this angers God as did Onan; however, was is that Onan spilled his seed or because he was greedy and conceited by not wanting to give a child to someone else that would give him no benefit. What is the worse sin? Further on in this chapter, we are told of the story of Onan’s father, Judah sleeping with this woman, his daughter-in-law Tamar, who he was tricked to believe was a prostitute (Gen. 38:15) 21. This is a good example of the treacherous sins of adultery, incest, and prostitution, each of which are detestable to God and are mortal sins (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 18:10, Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, Deut. 23:17-18) 22; yet Judah is not destroyed by God. Therefore, I believe that it is not the mere act of coitus interruptus that caused God to destroy Onan. It was his lack of love for his brother to produce offspring for him that displeased the LORD! We must seek clear answers to the reasons things are done and examine the scripture in the context they are written. It is clearly wrong to take two sentences from an entire chapter and state their meaning as a natural law and condemn the act as a mortal sin.
So, I tell you that as a Christian I think mostly in terms of my salvation in Christ and of the new covenant, not to substitute for the old which must remain in place but instead giving light to the old, in which it is said that the laws of God could be fulfilled in the one commandment (Romans 13:8) 23 Christ gave us: Jesus said, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34) 24.” This new truth, new way, and new light that is Christ is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament and covenant; proclaimed by the prophets who obeyed and fulfilled all the laws of God. The same foreshadowing and truth is found in this story so that we may take heart to the lessons of Christ for our deliverance: Onan’s sin was his failure to hold love in his heart for others so that he would do the right thing. He was “wicked.” Christ is the source of true love. Without Christ’s love in our hearts given to us by him through the Holy Spirit, we are condemned to death by sin (Romans 6:23, Romans 8:2) 25.

1. Gen. 38:9-10
2. Gen. 38:15
3. Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 18:10, Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, Deut. 23:17-18
4. Romans 13:8
5. John 13:34
6. Romans 6:23, Romans 8:2

 

[christianlove]

Again, how is coitus interruptus a violation of any law of God? Certainly, there is no violation of Love. In fact it is the personification of Love when two people made holy and sanctified as one flesh are united in this way. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them, (Gen. 1:27) 26” flesh of [his] flesh and bone of [his] bone (Gen. 2:23) 27 as one individual. In this moment of intercourse they are indeed one and this embodies the male and female image of God together as the one He is; the image of God: Love (1 John 4:8) 28. This is the unitive aspect, and let it not be underestimated. In his image as one flesh, these two persons become yet a third in the action and embodiment of Love, representing a beautiful emulate of the Trinity: the Matrimonial Trinity. The love between a couple is what God made them to become, what Christ taught us to do, and what the Holy Spirit inspires us to be.
Does the withdrawal and loss of seamen to prevent an unplanned pregnancy (procreative aspect) in anyway diminish the most awesome closeness to God individuals can share together (unitive aspect)? How can this be a sin which “sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it (Gen 3:5)” 9; or “turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him (CCC1855)” 15; it is just the opposite. This cannot be a sin, much less a mortal sin! So is it the lack of love or the spilling of the seed that is sin? Is it the failure to fulfill the unitive or procreative actions that is sin; both; either? I say neither. Rather, a sin is born when neither the unitive or procreative process is fulfilled, frustrating both in an act of self indulging gratification by an act of objectified sex that has no purpose.
The CCC states that “[abstinence during times of fertility] respects the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favors the education of an authentic freedom (CCC2370) 30. This is hard to understand. Having sex or not should have nothing to do with respecting the body of your spouse. As a person cannot hate his own body (Ephesians 5:29) 31, a person who is truly united with their spouse by being made “one flesh (Gen. 2:24) 32” cannot disrespect the counterpart’s body. It has nothing to do with sexual intercourse, only with love and mutual unity.
Furthermore, the particular occasion when a woman is fertile does not make her more vulnerable to disgrace; in fact it makes her radiate with sensuality and aspiration to feel her husband’s true love and power to join with her. It is a blessing that God gives her to satisfy her need to be feminine as a man is masculine. Together, as each kind, they are truly the pinnacle of the image of God. What better way to encourage tenderness than passionate union with one another during this time of intense emotion and desire for another. Do not mistake this as meaning lust! The CCC defines lust as a “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 (CCC2351) 33.” Lust, defined as a sin in Galatians (Gal 5:19-21) 13, should not be found in a truly sanctified marriage between two God fearing people whose journey in life is to glorify his name! It is for his glory that we give ourselves to each other thus fulfilling our commitment to the Sacrament instituted by Christ.
Finally to say that refusing to give each other sexual intercourse when both desire it for the purpose of unity and not procreation is a process of fostering authentic freedom is illogical. Our freedom comes from giving each other ourselves willingly and with heart and soul. To abstain is truly inhibiting this freedom. This is the freedom sanctified by Christ to be a grace: a way to increase our relationship with him and His Father by the Holy Spirit. It brings us to Him in all ways imaginable and settles our hearts on one another to secure fidelity even without fecundity. In fact, St. Paul tells the Corinthians not to deprive each other of sex and abstain only with mutual consent for a time for prayer, so as not to let the sexual desire, most lofty during fertility, lead to self indulgence or anger (1 Cor 7:5) 34.

1. Gen. 1:27
2. Gen. 2:23
3. 1 John 4:8
4. Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]
5. CCC2370
6. Ephesians 5:29
7. Gen. 2:24
8. CCC2351
9. 1 Cor 7:5

 

[christianlove]

The Encyclical Letter of Paul VI
As a means to a conclusion, I consider the encyclical letter, “Human Vitae 35,” written By Pope Paul VI in 1968 on the regulation of birth. It is quite clear in this letter that all forms of birth control are condemned by the CC and will never be tolerated. There is no exception and there is no means of right to justify the wrong. Again, I only consider coitus interruptus here because this is my concern. Other forms of birth control are further debatable elsewhere and carry with them different philosophy and mentality as far as I am concerned.
As for Human Vitae, Human Life, its dissection begins with the Pope’s astute realization that this subject of regulation of birth can no longer be ignored by the Church. During the year 1968, the sexual revolution had taken a hold on the entire world, and there was a deep concern that birth control liberated many people from their feelings of moral responsibility. Pope Paul VI makes note of this problem by writing that “[human beings] need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.” How does birth control become a disincentive to keep moral law? Is it the fear that a child could be conceived that would prevent people from having sex? This did not stop Judah from impregnating Tamar (Gen. 38:24-26) 36, nor King David from fathering a child with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah (2 Samuel 11:4-5) 37. The problem of sexual deviants is not new; it has only been brought more fully into the public view in recent times through our easy access to multimedia outlets, and pornographic magazines, pictures, and videos have desensitized many to the immorality and “failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment” to sexual pleasure (CCC1849) 11. The morality of the World is not changing because of birth control. Of most concern, however, it is the lack of true brotherly love for one another that Christ so adamantly taught us (Romans 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 2 Peter 1:7) 38. In this instance, there is a good cause of alarm. If Onan had loved his brother and cared for his wife, his Father would not have sinned with her. In addition, if David loved Uriah like a brother, he would not have taken his wife as his own and angered God. In this way, with true brotherly love, we fulfill all the laws of God. What has birth control got to do with violating God’s law?
St. John Chrysostom says of prohibiting conception, “Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]) 1, 29?” Is not the sexual unity with one another a gift from God? Then abstaining is likewise “condemning the gift of God and fighting with his [natural] laws.” Is it a sin because we are not fulfilling the promise to create life; is this a law of God; a natural law? Let life be created where and when life is desired by God to be brought into the world through love. Can God not make a woman pregnant by her husband when he wishes? By abstaining, a woman’s egg will simply drift through her body and wash out never to be fertilized. She is choosing not to be inseminated by refusing intercourse; so she preventing a child’s formation. Is this loss of potential for human life “condemning the gift of God?” Without ejaculation spermatozoa are dying every day within the man’s testicles; the entire supply of stored spermatozoa will be turned over every 3 months. 500 million potential lives are lost! Is this “fight with his [natural] laws” cause the loss of potential life; so this is a sin? No! Do we let the natural process of our dying reproductive seeds take place inside of our bodies by avoiding the unitive aspects of intercourse that brings married couples to a close bond of love and deep personal relationship with themselves and with God because if we do let them die outside of our body it would be particularly detestable to God? I find no good justification for this in Scripture, Gospel, or the teaching of the apostles and early Church fathers.
Human Vitae 35 goes on to state that the natural method of abstaining from sex during fertile days is not in contradiction to preventing the “generative process” by artificial means because the former method uses God’s intended cycle of the woman to provide times of intercourse. Yet again, I must object to this not so much that they are in contradiction as I have already discussed above but also that by withholding love from one another during a time when spouses mutually desire the intimate gift of God is neglecting the gift of marriage and the blessings bestowed upon it. It can be detrimental to a relationship to prevent making love as during times of intense sexual emotion a female has during her fertile period. What is more is the amount of time the unified couple must refrain from intimacy is almost a third of the month. During this entire time, the couple must avoid even the mere whisper of sensual contact or the innate human weakness of the flesh, born from original sin, overwhelms them and may result in lustful and objective intercourse. Willfully permitting intercourse at times of mutual consent, no matter the fertility, is gravely important to the marriage and its continued appreciation of one another to remove the temptation to make sex an act of fleshy “necessity” instead of a motion of communal love. Time makes the heart grow fonder, but abstinence makes the flesh grow weaker!

1. Human Vitae
2. Gen. 38:24-26
3. 2 Samuel 11:4-5
4. Romans 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 2 Peter 1:7

 

[christianlove]

The value of self-discipline is discussed such that its fruits are recognizing the true blessing of family life, transforming sexual intercourse into a “truly human character,” fostering loving consideration for one another, repelling “an inordinate self-love”, arousing sense of responsibility, and conferring a deeper sense for the education of their children. So let us take each of these into consideration.
It is true that self discipline is rewarding when it is offered to God as a means of sacrifice and prayer, for example when fasting. In this case, though, to take a sacramental blessing given to us by God and offer it back to Him seems wrong to me. Do we proclaim we will withhold taking the Eucharist as a means of fasting? No! Sacraments are given to us as gifts, do not throw them back! In this way, refusing to give the desiring spouse what they need, when the other is also wanting it, only for the means of not frustrating the procreative process (meanwhile very much frustrating the unitive process) is “an offense against God” (CCC1849) 12. In this way, the procreative and unitive processes are frustrated. As stated above, removing both of these aspect from the marriage is less than desirable, and this makes it more of a sin then simply frustrating the procreative process that does not offend God.
Next, do we really want sexual intercourse to take on a more human character? It seems it is human enough in lustful affairs and the state of freely given sex among the unmarried and adulterous. It should be offered as a more divine act that brings us closer to God. As I mentioned above, it is the only act that the two halves of God can truly join to become his perfect image. There is no human characteristic needed here unless there is God in the middle. We need God to be in our relationships to be a blessing of unity as much as we need Him in our hearts to truly be alive. If sexual intercourse is not a human characteristic, then what is it? Indeed, the married couples who offer themselves to God are the ones who find quite more than a human experience in sexual intercourse. Atheist find human characteristic in sexual intercourse; however, through God and Christ, Christian find the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony each time there are relations despite unitive or procreative process in play.
Consideration for one another is not fostered by abstaining as I have already spoken to. Treating your spouse as your own body means to give all that is good and right to him/her so as not to cause frustrations and consideration is what is needed in more marriages. To blame birth control for the slippery slopes of the world’s moral fiber and the high divorce rates in urban societies is not evidence based or substantiated. Self-respect and respect for each other, through brotherly love, is the premise of the solution. Blaming anything else is scandalous and self-blinding.
So there is no self-love in giving yourself to your spouse. It is the commitment that is made between the two of them during their wedding vows that they give each other wholly to the other for the whole purpose of releasing one’s self for the greater good to the two made one; this is the very basis of conjugal fidelity (CCC2364) 39. If the two people are truly in love and share this love always, then they can never be self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5) 40. This is similar to the commitment of fidelity of which St John Chrysostom states that husbands should say to their wives, “I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you (CCC2364) 41.” It is this love that allows them to listen, speak, and understand each other so as to “conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality (CCC2368) 42” and use this objective criteria to justly separate the unitive and procreative aspect of conjugation without sin. Without this mutual love, this oneness, a married couple is not truly sharing the bonds of love and so it is possible that the unitive process is never fostered between them. In this sense, there is not frustration, no obvious sin, just desperation and a need for Christ to teach them the love that can save not only their relationship but their everlasting life. Indeed, as we all seek to emulate Christ and find his everlasting peace, the married couple seeks to emulate in their marriage his self-sacrificing devotion to his bride, the church. In this way only can the love in a marriage live up to its full potential.

1. CCC2364
2. 1 Cor 13:5
3. CCC2364
4. CCC2368

 

[christianlove]

Second only to bearing children and raising them, the responsibility to a spouse to fulfill their need of affection is vitally important to the marriage’s success. To refuse this is to be irresponsible with the blessings given to us. I am not meaning to say that sexual intercourse should be given up freely anytime a spouse is asking for it. There are times when it is just not what one or the other will want to do, and it becomes imperative that no one is forced into an act of sex which would clearly objectify sexual intercourse and then could be considered “a perverse attachment to certain goods (CCC1849) 12.” In this way both the unitive and procreative processes are frustrated. Therefore, it is clearly a sin to force sex on a partner when they refuse. However, mutually fulfilling the responsibility of a spouse, especially at the need or request of one spouse more than the other is to grow love and unity between the couple. This is the spousal responsibility to each other.
As for a deeper sense of education of our children, raising them in way of Christ is their redemption. The sexual relationship between their parents has no bearing on the child unless there is strife and unrest in the house because of unwanted sexual frustration as a result of the lack of marital responsibilities. As the children grow older and need to be taught about sexual intercourse, then they should be firmly rooted in the teachings of Christ and the expectation that we were all created by the Father, loved by Christ to his death, and offered the Holy Spirit to guide us. With this foundation, they will learn how to treat their partners and what to expect from a sexual relationship within a sanctified marriage. Abstinence to prevent frustrating the procreative function of sexual intercourse has no purpose in the education of children.
Finally, in direct contrast to the statement of the advantages of self-discipline and the benefits of abstaining during times of fertility, Human Vitae 35 pleads to scientist who may be able to “considerably advance the welfare of marriage and the family and also peace of conscience, if by pooling their efforts they strive to elucidate more thoroughly the conditions favorable to a proper regulation of births.” I am confused by this because the “regulation of birth” is proposed to be the “violation of natural law” which makes frustrating the procreative functions a sin! Is this not stating that the welfare of marriage and peace of consciousness are at peril as a result of having to abstain while the woman is fertile? This admits to the very nature of the problem facing the body of Christ, the church, the people who endure a law that purportedly puts their soul in mortal danger of hell if they practice coitus interruptus. Certainly, for those who commit this act and are truly faithful to the church, as I am trying to be, it is a slap in the face because the holy Eucharist, our greatest celebration and redemption as the bread of life to take away the hunger for eternal salvation and closeness to our God, is taken away. What is this? Should we put our marriage in strife and have the peace and solitude of our homes in turmoil to fulfill a law based on scriptures that condemns to death the spilling of “seed” outside a woman but does not equally punish adultery, prostitution, and incest which “corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality (CCC2388) 43?”

1. CCC2388

 

[christianlove]

Conclusion
The man and woman are married, unified into one flesh, sanctified by Christ through the Holy Spirit, loved by and combined with God the Father, rejoiced and lifted by the Church, and fulfilled with all the expectation of these Holy names with each and every giving of one’s self to the other, and the act of frustrating the procreative process while fostering the unitive process can in no way remove the charity in their hearts. The CC nobly sides with the procreation of life at all cost and holds that the unitive (fidelity) and procreative (fecundity) processes must be used together at all times to avoid “altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family (CCC2363) 44,” and that “both [are] inherent to the marriage act (CCC2366) 45.” While I also would unquestionably agree with the support of all any life formed from the moment of conception, I simply disagree on the basis that inhibiting is not removing. The unitive or procreative process can each, in their own way, bring a married couple closer to God; therefore, the fulfillment of either is righteous and need not be dependent on the other. The unitive process fulfills the creation of a trinity, three persons united in one image of Love that makes a human being in the image which he was created. In this process we become closer to God than we ever can be. Even without the creation of Life, there is creation of truly divine Love. Both are incredibly blessed. In addition, the procreative process allows us to share in the ultimate gift of the creation of life, which is the power of God alone. To allow us to have such an amazing role in the creation of life, likewise, brings the married couple closer to God. “By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood (CCC2398) 46.” Therefore, both of these processes are incredibly religious and should be shared together as a blessing, envisioned and experienced as such. Either one alone is enough to bestow upon us God’s grace, which is the purpose of all the Sacraments that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted and share with us.
On the other hand, without one or the other process involved, sex is a mere function that frustrates its entire purpose and is only being done for a “perverse good,” so can be considered sinful. This does not fulfill the purpose and sacramental responsibility of marriage in any way, shape or form. Therefore, this is a misuse of the blessing of God, and this directly turns the couple away from God, preferring sexual pleasure of each for one self instead of offering themselves as one for God’s glory. Not to acknowledge God by uniting in his image or accepting the procreation of life is sinful.
As long as the CC holds on to the belief that coitus interruptus is a sin, I must try to overcome my intellectual reasoning and obey as Christ taught us to obey all authority put in place by God. Pope Paul VI concludes his encyclical letter with words of encouragement to strengthen my resolve to remain faithful to the CC as my source of religious education, strength in grace, and growth in the love of Christ. He writes, “…married couples [must learn] the necessary way of prayer and prepare…to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart because of their weakness (Human Vitae) 35.” Only in this way can I remit. All the words above are but a calling out with a lavish tongue my thoughts and frustrations for which there are pleas with scientist, of all groups, to assist with. As a newly devoted Catholic, and forever devoted to the love of Christ and mercy of God, I must accept these things and “implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all,…draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist. If, however, sin still exercises its hold over [me, I am] not to lose heart. Rather must *, humble and persevering, have recourse to the mercy of God, abundantly bestowed in the Sacrament of Penance. In this way, for sure, * will be able to reach that perfection of married life (Human Vitae) 35.”
There is vast tranquility in placing all innocence and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to lead us all to his Father’s house with the Holy Spirit blazing in our hearts and minds. No one can take away my God, His love for me, and mine for Him! So, with trust in Him, how do I fail? How does my mind lead me astray when I am fully His? I am certainly not infallible, but with the love of Christ a path is lit, and I walk with assurance that he will guide me straight to him where I will fall in his arms.

1. CCC2363
2. CCC2366
3. CCC2398**

 

[Red_Beard]

christianLove,

I believe you have done yourself and all of us a disservice by posting such an epic dissertation at this point in the conversation.

It is a disservice to us both precisely because it is in a format that cannot be adequately answered in a forum. A line by line response to your 9 posts would have to be 18 posts long. This is clearly not the proper format. If you are truly seeking an answer or debate, you need to take it one topic at a time and allow others to respond.

You have quoted several primary sources and then interpreted them to mean something other than their stated meaning. (ie. quoting the CCC in support of Onanism when the only method it puts forward as legitimate for spacing births is Periodic Continence, CCC. 2370 and other Church documents explicitly condemn Onanism.) This leads me to doubt that you are interested in a conversation in the first place.

Also, you are entering the conversation at post 158 and are restating several previous statements without adding to them. I am not convinced that you have read the thread before posting. The good people on this forum have already answered most of your points more than once. I don’t know about the others but my patience is not infinite.
The biggest problem with this topic is that people have a vested interest in the outcome. Time and again I have seen the willful ignorance of people who choose not to understand the truth because they are afraid of what God’s Will really is. As Christians, we are called to live in joy, not in fear. God’s plan is the perfect plan. The good He has chosen for us greatly surpasses any “goods” we would choose for ourselves in spite of Him.

Onanism kills love. God wants our love to flourish and live.

If this frightens anyone, please pick up Dr. Popcak’s book “Holy Sex! - A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving” to get a taste for the joy that God really intended marital relations to have.

If anyone is interested in what the Church actually teaches, I recommend reading catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp which applies all of the primary sources in context.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[christianlove]

I am sorry if my timing of this post was off or have reposted answers to questions already out there. I simply put my opinion out there. No disservice is intended, so if anyone is offended, I am sorry for this also.

I was unaware that I stated the CCC supports onanism, surely I did not intend to say that. I am clear on the stance of the church on this issue. I am wholeheartedly embracing the will of the Church on this issue. My wife and I, newly devoted to the catholic faith, are taking NFP classes so that we can understand these issues. Furthermore, we will try very hard with the help of God and prayer to live within the rules of the church and God.

I pray you have more patience for all other people whose thoughts are truly inspired by a desire to understand better how they are called to God. Not everyone is given a clear path. The will of God is sometime hard, and he will guide us through it with trust in Him. However, it is usually neither in our sight or mind to know his plan. Faith and hope lead the Christian to his salvation. In this way, I try to answer my own questions. God’s plan is perfect, but people are not.

If you truly read my conclusion, you would see what a struggle this is for me, and obviously many others. I am not questiong the truth of the Church (in fact I say that clearly), but I am simply “calling out with a lavish tongue my thoughts and frustrations for which there are pleas with scientist, of all groups, to assist with. As a newly devoted Catholic, and forever devoted to the love of Christ and mercy of God, I must accept these things and implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all,…draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist.” I am accepting these as his divine will allows me to do.

The Lord so graciously gave us the will to seek him. It is right that we should live in joy, but fear of the Lord is wisdom (Leviticus 25:17, Deuteronomy 6:24, Joshua 4:24, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Ezra 10:3, Job 1:8, Psalm 67:7, Psalm 96:4, Ecclesiastes 7:18, Acts 10:2, Revelation 14:7, to name a few). It is not the fear that he will strike me down if I do wrong and sin in his sight, it is the fear that I will offend him. I love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and so I fear that I will in some way misplace my trust in him. This fear is healthy. Do not mis-interpret a man’s fear of God as fear of retrubution; but it is a fear of losing his love (i.e. of comiting sin). It fear that will open our ears to his words, look for his outstretched arm, and give up our own pride to fully trust in his might!

Ecclesiastes 8:13
Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.

Red_Beard, you have good intentions and your heart is with the Lord and his with you; but show love and compassion for those who are more confused then you. Christ came for the sinners and the brokenherted, not the righteous. It is not about always being right or wrong. Sometime, it is just about love. God surely does not expect us to know everything; He does not care if we are right or wrong as long as we love him the best we can. St. Thomas Acquinas acknowledged the limitations of our minds to understand fully the will of God. Read the book of Job again; even the most righteous man on the Earth is put in his place for trying to understand God.

Job 38:3-4 (New International Version)

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

Use your knowledge to uplift hearts, not to insult them. Have trust in the ministry the Lord has chosen for you in this format. Reshape your tongue with love and praise, not with stones and condemnation. In this way your words will have more affect on those you are trying to teach.

1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Let love speak so that we can hear your message instead of the booming NO! WRONG! you have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread not only to me but others (e.g. when you say: "Life would be simpler if sub refrained from using words that he has proven himself unwilling or incapable of understanding, such as ‘inseparable connection.’ This is like trying to explain calculus to a man who just keeps shouting ‘2 + 2 = 5!’ ") Let life not be simply, but pick up your burden to continue and prove that 2+2=4.

I am humbled by your response, and again apologize for causing anyone disservice. My intensions were not to soley disregard the teachings of the church, but to question them only in a healthy way while making it clear that they are the authority by the power given to it by Christ: “I must try to overcome my intellectual reasoning and obey as Christ taught us to obey all authority put in place by God.” This is the truth.

With the peace of Christ in my heart, I pray for fellowship through the Spirit of God the Father,

Christian Love

 

[christianlove]

It is right to open our ears to the Word:
“If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts. Alleluia, alleluia”

Reading the Magnifcat and today’s liturgey, I try to discern meaning so as not to harden my heart.

It is the feast of Saint Bernard (catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=559), and you can find all the readings here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320164/posts

I share Psalms 40 with you:

Blessed is the man
who makes the LORD his trust,
who does not look to the proud,
to those who turn aside to false gods.

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.

Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.

I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."

I proclaim righteousness in the great assembly;
I do not seal my lips,
as you know, O LORD.

God bless you all, this thread is glorified in His gifts to you all, and the light it gives to others. The specifics in this thread, the arguments, the points, are the small picture. The knowledge and the wisdom are gifts we recieve with graciousness and glorify Him with; it is not our own. Thus the apostles say, “What have you that you did not recieve? Now if you did recieve it, why did you glory as if you had not recieved it?”

Sorry to get off point, please dont blast me, but I read this today, felt a change, wanted to share it. My road to converstion and faith in His will is a journey, not a destination.

When we hear heretical voices about us…, when we see that the sanctity of marriage and the priesthood are attacked without fear of rebuke, have confidence, for the Holy Church is incorruptible.

– St Augustine

Peace,

Christian Love

 

[Red_Beard]

Christianlove,

Please understand me rightly, I don’t have a lot of time to devote to my activity on this forum/thread. I therefore try to post the truth as clearly as possible to make sure it is understood. I am not trying to be rude, insulting, or superior. If you and others only see “NO! WRONG!” there has been a breakdown in communication.

It is not loving or compassionate for me to leave someone in their confusion or sin, even though they are happier or it is easier for them. That is why I bother to try and give them the Truth. My charism is to proclaim God’s absolute truth boldly in an age of rampant relativism.

Truth, which is as much a reflection of God as Love, is always about right and wrong. Loving and keeping God’s Commandments are not mutually exclusive. In fact, you cannot love God if you are knowingly not keeping His commandments.

While your intentions may be good; if you know and are “clear on the stance of the Church on this issue.” stating your opposing opinion on a matter, without clearly stating that you acknowledge the Church is right, has the potential of leading others astray. There is a difference between “I find myself disagreeing with the Church on this so I need help understanding why the Church says …” and “I think that this is true even though the Church doesn’t.” If you are seeking to understand, ask questions. There are answers and you can know them.

I am not intending to mischaracterize your position. Your last post speaks very beautifully about submitting to the truth that Christ has revealed through His Church. I just don’t understand how to square this with post #158 that repeats several errors of relativism and questions the Church’s claims of infallibility. It may not have been what you intended, but I was concerned that it can confuse and mislead people.

Trying to “overcome your intellectual reasoning and obey. . .” is not helpful to you or anyone else. If the teachings of the Church are true and your reasoning leads you to a contradictory conclusion, then logically, your reasoning is faulty. You shouldn’t try to overcome your reason or ignore your reason, you should try and correct it.

If I am doing my sums and the answer key shows I have erred, I don’t say, “I have confidence in my arithmetic but I will humbly submit myself to the answer given in spite of my reason.” I go back, start over and learn how to do it right. Then I can know that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of just choosing to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 on the basis of a higher arithmetical authority. As Catholics, we believe that the soul is lifted to God on equal wings of Faith and Reason.

I like the translation of Psalm 40 in the Magnificat better:

“Blessed the man who makes the Lord his trust;
who turns not to idolatry
or to those who stray after falsehood. . .”

Then again, I’m a Truth and Justice person.

“I pray you have more patience for all other people whose thoughts are truly inspired by a desire to understand better how they are called to God. Not everyone is given a clear path.”

Thank you for your prayers. Please pray that I am given the right amount of patience the right words and an abundance of love. I will pray for you and your family as well. It is beautiful to hear someone speak of their love of Christ in the Eucharist.

Also, please do not be scandalized by my words for Sub. He is one of the most belligerent and abusive people I have met. He has thoroughly and repeatedly abused the original poster (and reason itself). It would be contrary to justice to describe him in any other manner, and it is not in my charism to do so. Perhaps that is why God creates people with different charisms. My reason (or my tenacious repetition of God’s truth revealed through men much wiser than me in His Church) will not convince this man. Perhaps your effusive love can.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[BruceK]

I would have to concur with you, Red Beard, Christianlove’s posts are ultimately counterproductive but are with the best of intentions. I honestly do not have the time or desire to read all 9 of Xtianlove’s posts. Since you mentioned Sub I will share another sparing I had with him to I was drawn into recently. He was having a discussion with another person about moral relativism and homosexuality in which he stated:
The question was brought up:

Is “morality relative”?? <<

SUB >> Yes. It is relative to the basis by which one judges morality. <<

There are two aspects to arriving at a moral norm. The first is the funadmantal reality or truth on which a moral norm is based; the second is the soundness of the argument by which one proceeds from an absolute truth to a moral norm (conclusion).

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of Christ’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, and the fact that some individuals are born gay and therefore loving someone of the same sex is natural, one could perhaps construct an argument for the morality of gay marriage.

If one assesses the morality of gay marriage from the perspective of the role of marriage and sexual intercourse in the propagation of the species, enlightened by Scriptural prohibition of homosexual intercourse, one can construct an argument against the morality of gay marriage.

To which I stated: Ultimately what’s the difference between sterilized heterosexuality and homosexual sex? Nothing – for both disjoin procreation from sexual expression. <<
Sub replies:
NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP. The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”. But both ends are proximate ends to the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the human species. (See JPII, L&R pg 51) Both proximate ends derive their morality from the fact that they are both intrinsic elements of the ultimate end. The pursuit of “unification” to the exclusion of “procreation” (e.g. NFP) is justified in so far as it serves the ultimate end of the sexual urge - the propagation of the species. Homosexual sex, however, does not serve the ultimate end of the sexual urge. It is not “ordered to” the ultimate end. It cannot be justified on the basis of God’s will as expressed through His creation of humans. It is immoral because it conflicts with God’s will as best we can know it from the perspective that I have outlined.>

I’ll leave it to you to critique his canned response and logical fallacies.

 

[Benadam]

Hope you don’t mind my two cent deposit.

NFP also disjoins (excludes) procreation from sexual expression (see JPII L&R pg 235), with the Vatican’s sanction. If there were something immoral about disjoining procreation from sexual expression, the Vatican would condemn NFP.

Two purposes ,one act. If NFP dis-joined procreation from the unitive purpose of sex NFP wouldn’t be acceptable. Sexual expression flows from the procreative urge as does the unitive purpose. Unity proceeds from the procreative purpose. If the procreative purpose is lacking so will the unitive purpose. This is obvious in the business of prostitution.

The difference between “sterilized heterosexuality” and homosexual sex is fundamental to the issue of conjugal morality. God created humans so that sexual intercourse serves two separate ends: procreation and unification. He obviously did not will that the two ends be “inseparably connected”.

On the contrary, pairbonding in all animals that pairbond is ordered to provide a safe environment to copulate and if needed raise young. The unitive purpose suspends the competitive identity of the partners for the purpose of procreation. The unitive purpose in contingent on the procreative purpose.

 

[christianlove]

I dont know if the unitive process is contingent on the procreative process or vice versa. It is best when they are used together; however, I thin they can be seperated, but the question is is that a sin?

In that long, “epic dissertation, ” I wrote:

It is the commitment that is made between the two of them during their wedding vows that they give each other wholly to the other for the whole purpose of releasing one’s self for the greater good to the two made one; this is the very basis of **conjugal fidelity **(CCC2364). If the two people are **truly in love **and share this love always, then they can never be self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5). This is similar to the commitment of fidelity of which St John Chrysostom states that husbands should say to their wives, “I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you (CCC2364).” It is this love that allows them to listen, speak, and understand each other so as to “conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality (CCC2368) ” and use this objective criteria to justly separate the unitive and procreative aspect of conjugation without sin. Without this mutual love, this oneness, a married couple is not truly sharing the bonds of love and so it is possible that the unitive process is never fostered between them. In this sense, there is not frustration, no obvious sin, just desperation and a need for Christ to teach them the love that can save not only their relationship but their everlasting life. Indeed, as we all seek to emulate Christ and find his everlasting peace, the married couple seeks to emulate in their marriage his self-sacrificing devotion to his bride, the church. In this way only can the love in a marriage live up to its full potential.

I am not trying to be a heretic here, but my point is this. My wife does not feel strongly on this issue. She thinks the church is wrong. I think the church is right by its own authority given to it by christ; however, consider how this makes her feel when she is fertile and wants very badly to make love. Her natural biological law is kicking in and she needs to have that unity with me. I say “no.” I am being selfish and self serving by trying to be upright and sinless. I want to be blameless to save myself. This self serving attitiude is exactly what St. Chrysostom meant to disagree with when he wrote “nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.” Trust me, it is painful. It is within these thought that we conform ourselves to decide what is objective morality and make a decision as to whether there is sin, even grave sin.

Often, I am weakend and give in to the need of my wife, because I can see how it upsets her, pains her, puts self doubt of my love in her mind, makes her question why I put things above her…I know why I do it. I can love nothing more than my God! How do you tell your wife that?

I pray everyday that the holy spirit move in his way through her. I have trust in the Giver of Life, but this is my thorn in the flesh. I will let his grace be enough. Sometime, I need to find that grace in the sacrament of confession, certainly in the eucharist.

Christ said pick up your cross and follow me! Here I am Lord, do with me as you please. Your servant is listening!

I pray for all who are struggling as I am, I pray for all of you who are helping us get thorugh this with your words. Thank you Red Beard, I could hear your words much better in your last letter becasue it was with sincere truth and love you wrote it.

Love one another deeply and indefinately, in all ways, and for nothing in return,

Christian Love

 

[Red_Beard]

Your quote from your previous post confuses me. You have great cited quote after great cited quote followed by bolded statement that seems like it should be a quote but which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. (Church, Church, Church, NOT CHURCH). Perhaps I just don’t understand your style.

“I think the church is right by its own authority given to it by christ;”

I think it is important to note that the Church is right because what it proclaims is objectively true, not because it has arbitrarily decreed it to be so.

“however, consider how this makes her feel when she is fertile and wants very badly to make love. Her natural biological law is kicking in and she needs to have that unity with me.”

I think that you have oversimplified the situation that you are describing witch leads to some confusion.

Your wife wants unity with you. She can have that.

Your wife wants unity with you when it is most pleasurable. She can have that.

Your wife wants unity with you when it is most pleasurable without consequences. Here is were it breaks down.

The point that must be realized is that the act of conjugal love is an act that is designed by God to have consequences. Its very power lies in the fact that it has consequences (another term is “ends”).

If trying to avoid pregnancy, your possible responses are to have conjugal relations in infertile times which does not change the Act that God has created, or to take action to change the Act itself.

The problem is, that the ends, or consequences, of the Act are essential elements of the act itself. Every authentic act of conjugal love has the essential ends, both procreative and unitive, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT RESULT IN PREGNANCY.

Similarly, any act that looks like an act of conjugal love that does not have either or both of these ends is NOT an act of conjugal love. It is a perversion of the Act that God has created and it is disordered.

“I say “no.” I am being selfish and self serving by trying to be upright and sinless. I want to be blameless to save myself. This self serving attitiude is exactly what St. Chrysostom meant to disagree with when he wrote “nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.””

You are not being selfish if you are helping your wife avoid something that is objectively wrong. In fact, on the theological level, facilitating immoral behavior in another is an example of “willing the bad” or at the very least “willing the lesser or ilicit good” which is contrary to authentic love which is always “willing the good.”

Let me know if this doesn’t make sense.

“Trust me, it is painful.”

I have been there, I know, and I’m praying for you.

" It is within these thought that we conform ourselves to decide what is objective morality and make a decision as to whether there is sin, even grave sin."

If I understand your meaning here, I believe you are mistaken. Anything that you feel is “subjective.” (pertaining to the frame of reference of the subject) Morality is by it’s nature “objective.” (existing as an object in its own right apart from any given subject)

Our pain is subjective and can never help us to “decide what is objective morality.” In fact, we can never “decide” anything objective just as we can never truly “decide” that the sky is blue.

The sky remains obstinately blue no matter how hard I decide it is green.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[christianlove]

My writing style is strange, I admit and my wife confirms (as do you); however, it just shows how confused I have made myself. I think you are right Red Beard. My priest told me I am over-thinking the whole issue.

I agree that it is “important to note that the Church is right because what it proclaims is objectively true, not because it has arbitrarily decreed it to be so.” However, what I am trying to specifically understand is why the procreative “ends” are more important than the unitive “ends.” Maybe they are not one more important than the other, but just inseparable, and that is where this thread has had the most interesting debates:thumbsup:. It all boils down to what I think you very nicely explained with the “sky is blue” analogy to describe this objective truth.

However, when you say, “The sky remains obstinately blue no matter how hard I decide it is green,” I must ask you how do you know what blue is (or green for that matter). If God told us the sky is blue, then he must also give us the knowledge to know what blue is. Its true vision, if we have never seen it before, must be explained to us and then we have to accept the truth of the one who tells us. The Bible and the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church stand as a witness to what knowledge it has been given from God. We (Catholics) should believe this and accept that wisdom as the wisdom of God; however, this is where many begin to sink, or worse, get back in the boat. Makes me think about tomorrow’s Gospel: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’(John 6:60)” I was beginning to sink, I think, but I am not ready to jump back in the boat and abandon my faith. Why would I sink? I consider the following words of God and teaching of the Church itself:

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 2:5
so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Colossians 1:9
For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

CCC 321 Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.

CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

Or, is blue what we know in our heart to be blue? Is this the knowledge we gained from the forbidden fruit? You see, I wonder what happens if you feel something other than the norm in your heart. What if you hear his voice in a different way? Who can tell you that you are wrong? Do we understand God and how He may chose to use a person? Did the Jews understand Jesus (clearly he was going around telling people the sky is green)? The feeling may be strong inside of you. You know it is not your reasoning because you understand the reasoning of others, and you know that you are not trying to wiggle out of something because it is the Spirit that confirms the truth in your heart, not your mind. In fact, you know that this disconnect is causing you a lot of emotional grief. So then you ask the Lord to take it away from you and give you the heart to follow others who have already learned what you need to know, but he answers you, “My grace is enough.” Somewhere I read, the bread goes down to starve, the spring goes down to thirst, the strong go down to suffer, so why do you refuse to go down? If, with love of God and Christ in your heart, the sky always looks purple to you, then you thank God for the color purple and show others what purple is (with words occasionally), accepting what blue is too and why green may be there too. Is that possible?

You are persuading me Red Beard, do not give up; I am close to understanding what I am practicing. I practice now out of respect and love of God and his Son’s Church, but He wants me to learn a Truth from all this. So I think sometimes there is good that comes from “intrinsic evil” on some level; first we fall into an evil from ignorance and then forceful habit. We learn it is evil and have to re-educate ourselves. This comes at a cost to the human psych and pride. Neither of them should be held with any regard when it comes to loving God, but humans are humans and it takes the majority longer to abandon these idols than the few who are so abundantly blessed to feel His touch from a younger age. Any means of suffering, right or wrong, are for His Glory. This thread is for His Glory.

For the record, I am against ABC and all for NFP:bounce:. My wife and I are trying to abstain during her times of fertility; hopefully, this will let us pray together and endure together to create a stronger bond between us. For all you reading this thread and think I am opposed to the church, I will just say I write funny. I love the Church, I love God, and I love Christ. I do what I must to give him all my life through the Spirit he loving gave me. He comes first. My mind is disposed to give me conflict, my spirit seeks a personal relationship with God, and Christ is my rock to emulate. Only in this way I know what is right. The Church is a beacon and Christ is the everlasting light on top which guides me home safely; now, does it matter what kind of vessel I use to get there!

I thank you all for your prayers, as I pray for all of you:angel1:.

Enduring love opens our hearts,

Christian Love

 

[Red_Beard]

“what I am trying to specifically understand is why the procreative “ends” are more important than the unitive “ends.” Maybe they are not one more important than the other, but just inseparable, and that is where this thread has had the most interesting debates. It all boils down to what I think you very nicely explained with the “sky is blue” analogy to describe this objective truth.”

Well, there have been several coherent answers to this question in this thread. It is most thoroughly explained in Humanae Vitae itself. To sum up, God designed the two ends to be inseparable. We can know this to be true through the infallible teaching of the Church and through our own observation. We can see the damage in our sex-riddled culture that comes from removing the procreative end. We can see the damage to the dignity of the human person that comes through removing the unitive end (IVF, snow flake babies, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc.)

“I must ask you how do you know what blue is (or green for that matter). If God told us the sky is blue, then he must also give us the knowledge to know what blue is.”

He has, see my two sources of knowledge above.

“Or, is blue what we know in our heart to be blue?”

The inseparable nature of the act is part of Natural Law and is therefore written on the hearts of man. You can come to knowledge of it through reason alone.

"You see, I wonder what happens if you feel something other than the norm in your heart. "

Me? I don’t decide anything by feelings. I use my reason. Others have different crosses to bear.

“What if you hear his voice in a different way? Who can tell you that you are wrong?”

The Church. Frankly, God may speak in different ways to different people but His messages will never contradict. People need to realize is that God’s is not the only voice that they hear.

“clearly he was going around telling people the sky is green”

The analogy is breaking down here as the sky is not green. A better statement would be that there were people who thought that the sky was green and Jesus came to tell them that it was blue. The color of the sky is objective.

“You know it is not your reasoning because you understand the reasoning of others, and you know that you are not trying to wiggle out of something because it is the Spirit that confirms the truth in your heart, not your mind.”

I may not be the best to speak to this kind of thing. When I know something, I know it through my mind and not my heart. Emotions are good servants but terrible masters. They are, by their very nature, subjective.

“If, with love of God and Christ in your heart, the sky always looks purple to you, then you thank God for the color purple and show others what purple is (with words occasionally), accepting what blue is too and why green may be there too. Is that possible?”

This sounds very well meaning, but I would still define it as relativism. The fact is that the color of the sky exists outside of your subjective perception of the color of the sky. If your subjective opinion differs from reality (the true object that exists without you) then you owe it to yourself to keep trying to conform yourself to that external truth. Otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world of your own creation instead of the wonderful world that God created.

Furthermore, if your explanations and conversations lead anyone away from objective truth, you are leading them into fantasy. Leading someone away from Truth is leading them away from God, who is all Goodness, Beauty, and Truth.

This is clearer in math than in colors. If you can’t understand that 2 + 2 = 4 and you have a compelling argument to explain why 2 + 2 = 5, you are not helping someone learn arithmetic by explaining your theory to them. You might seriously harm that person academically.

If you already know you are wrong, the best response is to ask for help instead of trying to define or defend what you know to be an untenable position.

One of the most beautiful things about being Catholic is that you have access to the truth. Everyone else has good subjective hypothesis of the truth but they don’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to prevent error. Ask the questions to tell us where you itch and the good people on this forum will do their best to help you scratch. Chances are that there is an answer to any question you have. Ask it.

“So I think sometimes there is good that comes from “intrinsic evil” on some level; first we fall into an evil from ignorance and then forceful habit. We learn it is evil and have to re-educate ourselves…”

God can bring good out of anything. It is still better for us to die rather than to sin.

“For the record, I am against ABC and all for NFP.”

Thank you for setting the record straight.

“Only in this way I know what is right. The Church is a beacon and Christ is the everlasting light on top which guides me home safely”

The more you write, the more I like you. (Though I still don’t think I understand a lot of what you are saying.) I like your charism and your zeal. Keep it up and we’ll be praying for you and yours.

God bless,
Red Beard

P.S.> My wife pointed out that you always differentiate between “God” and “Christ.” Is this stylistic? You do believe in the Trinity, right?

 

[christianlove]

Absolutely, I believe in the trinity. The name of my epic, as you remember, (however wrong it may be) states the matrimonial trinity.

Oh how I love God the Father, and he loved me to send his son to die even while I was “still a sinner,” and then Christ gave us his spirit to remind us we are not alone and to have strength to carry on his eternal light of hope.

What a glorious thing to make the sign of the cross, everyday (many times a day), in true belief and love of the trinity. I am a Christian, please know, my heart and life is his. I would surely give up this mortal life to defend my God, Christ and Spirit.

Christian Hope! Is there anything better? I know, Red Beard, I am confused. Insight is the beginning of all healing. As a physician, I see it all the time. Denial can ruin a person able to be healed. I still believe, as skewed as my mind may be, it is the will of God to take me down this road. I am not a Calvinist, but I have trust in the Lord to guide me through his path that He has planned for me (He knows my next move and will guide me right as long as I love him) because I love him! I know He is in control, so this is His rite of passage for me (like the Israelites through the desert). I will come to him. All those who love Christ are invited to the father, but we all do not have to travel the same road.

You see, Red Beard, to put it in more perspective, I think I appreciate the calling of Paul more than others. For I was raised Catholic 25 years ago, and then abandoned God completely. I ridiculed religion as an evolutionary ecologist on a rampage. I shunned all things good. I failed to see anything right or wrong, just life passing by. I was never an evil person. I held morals and ethics to high esteem. I maintained the golden rule because it was right, not because it was God’s second greatest commandment (love of him first). However, until I felt unease, turmoil, a need for him again, I never thought of anything but life going by. Then I went back to church because my wife, wanting our children raised Catholic, started the whole thing. God moved in me, chose the time to give me sight again, and stood in front of me. I slowly asked, through prayer, that I accept him in my heart. All sincere prayer are answered and then he was there! He was always there. I remember breaking down in tears, knowing how much I was loved and failed to love him back. That was a hard confession to make. Then I felt him lift my face, wash away that horrible sin, and accept me in his heart. I was moved, the spirit was in me. 25 years ! after my confirmation, I finally had the Spirit of God in my life.

I have since learned a lot, but have so much more to learn. That was 6 months ago Red Beard. I have gone through the NT three times (working through the Old, that’s harder), but I find meaning everywhere and in everything. I have sought out answers. I find them in you, in the Church, in my wife, in my children, in my work, but most of all in the trinity. The Creator! My Lord Christ, and the Spirit he lifted me to glory with, lives deeply in my heart. Oh, if I was a fire to set the world ablaze! This thorn, this body, this flesh, it is holding on despite my need to shed it. Blessed are you, and all who Christ has called closer to him now. I find comfort in the fact that the first will be last and last will be first. My wages will be given to me in due time.

He has a need for me. I am filling my life with him every day. I have a call to ordination, and I would not even share that with my wife yet, because it seems absurd for the very reason that I need confrontation on this forum. Nonetheless, it is the true Spirit of God that will purify my soul in time to take the next step of presenting myself as a deacon to apply myself to the discourse of the gospel. I feel his call; I will not turn away, despite how hard the devil pulls at me. I seek answers, not only here, but everywhere and in everything.

Thank you, your service to me you will never know. Christ is in you, I knew since your first letter. God bless us all.

The love of God have given us his Son, Christ, whose Spirit is the giver of Life.

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God (John 6:68-69).”

Peace,

Christian Love

 

[Red_Beard]

BruceK,

What sub repeatedly fails to realize is the very basic concept of what Conjugal Love is in the eyes of God and His Church.

Conjugal Love is a particular act between husband and wife ordered to unity and procreation. It is irreducibly complex. You cannot take out any part of this act and have it still be the same act.

Authentic Conjugal Love is the ONLY licit use of Man’s sexual faculties.

Homosexual relations are not Conjugal Love, no matter how much they look like it. They are a perversion (in the most literal sense*) of Conjugal Love.

Similarly, contracepted sex and Onanism are not acts of Conjugal Love. They are different perversions of that act. Each instance of these acts is a perverted act where Man takes what God has created and crudely cuts much of the good out of it. Man is actively changing each act from what God intended. Each act is intrinsically wrong as it is an illicit use of Man’s sexual faculties.

NFP is intrinsically different. Each act is an act of Conjugal Love where husband and wife share each other completely (rather than holding back the essence of their fertility.)

To illustrate it another way, there is no particular act in NFP that is wrong. Conjugal Love during the infertile period is licit. Abstinence for a period is licit. There is still the possibility of sin but that lies in the attitude and heart of the people involved, not in the acts themselves.

All that being said, I really think you need to wash your hands of him. He is not honest.

Benadam,

I like your insights!

God bless,

Red Beard

*Perverting - turning something to a wrong use