Is This a sin???

[striving]

Is Coitus Interruptus a sin??? We are in our early 50’s and use this as our way of not being “surprised” at our age. We have used NFP in the early stages of our marriage, one unexpected (but wonderful) pregnancy resulted. We have never used any “artificial means”.

 

[anne1234]

I think you’ll find your answer a few posts (threads) down.

 

[threej_lc]

Yes.

In addition to being very ineffective, it is once more A. Seperating the procreative act from the sexual act, thus perverting it, and even moreso, B, inhibiting the sexual act from completion as well. It is then essentially reduced to a form of masturbation.

In the book of Genesis, we see Onan (is that how you spell it?) Is struck dead from God for this very sin.

Josh

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Genesis 38:9-10

Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

 

[anne1234]

Genesis 38:9-10

ok help me understand this.
This is from the OT.
Aren’t things different now that we have the NT?

sorry

 

[threej_lc]

anne1234:

ok help me understand this.
This is from the OT.
Aren’t things different now that we have the NT?

sorry

God is an eternal, ever living God. He is constant. He does not change.

Christ did not replace the old testament. He fulfilled it. Therefore, all things commanded in the old testament are still binding today, only through the perception of Christ.

Therefore, all moral laws are still in effect. That is, the evil of homosexuality, birth control, etc.

The laws that were “removed” are the natural laws. One who does not wash his hands before he eats shall be removed from the community, that kind of thing. These mandates God gave to his people to protect them from the natural elements they did not understand yet. Now that we, as a more advanced society, understand the concept of germs and hygiene, they no longer require religious observance. The church’s authority to distinguish between natural law and moral law given in the old testament was given directly to Peter, as is revealed in the acts of the apostles.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Josh

 

[Pug]

striving:

Is Coitus Interruptus a sin??? We are in our early 50’s and use this as our way of not being “surprised” at our age.

The Church teaching in this regard is that it is wrong to practice coitus interruptus. This would fall under the category of contraception.

If you like to look things up in the CCC, it talks about contraception in 2370, I think, though the particular method is not mentioned there.

 

[gardenswithkids]

threej_lc:

…Christ did not replace the old testament. He fulfilled it. …
Therefore, all moral laws are still in effect…
The laws that were “removed” are the natural laws.

Josh, I agree with the spirit of your post, but I question the use of the term “natural law” to describe all the Jewish laws that are beyond the moral laws. The term “natural law” refers to those moral laws that are “inscribed in the heart, and known by human reason”. (i.e. every culture has laws against murder to some degree or another.)

I think the term is “Levitical Law” to describe the ritualistic circumcisions, washings and food requirements that we no longer follow–there are other New Testament passages that address why we don’t. But Onan’s act (coitus interuptus) was condemned by God far before those Levitical laws ever came to be.

The prohibition against contraception was never removed, because when we love God and love our neighbor as ourselves, we willingly accept any child God sends to us for both love of God and love of another (the child). Babies come into the world hungry, naked and homeless; whatever we do to the least of these, we do unto Him.

 

[Genesis315]

anne1234:

ok help me understand this.
This is from the OT.
Aren’t things different now that we have the NT?

sorry

The temporal punishments of the OT (like being put to death) teach lessons about the eternal consequences brought more fully to light in the NT. For example, you won’t get stoned for adultery anymore, but you suffer a kind of spiritual death (which is why it is called mortal sin).

Onan’s sin is a mortal sin, one that leads to death (and to spiritual death to this day)

 

[StCsDavid]

striving:

Is Coitus Interruptus a sin??? We are in our early 50’s and use this as our way of not being “surprised” at our age. We have used NFP in the early stages of our marriage, one unexpected (but wonderful) pregnancy resulted. We have never used any “artificial means”.

I would discuss this with a priest. I can tell you it’s about the least effective means of birth control there is. You’re far less likely to be surprised using NFP than this method. The key issue I see is that you are reducing God’s gift of sexuality to just your own physical enjoyment. It’s so much more.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

StCsDavid:

I would discuss this with a priest. I can tell you it’s about the least effective means of birth control there is. You’re far less likely to be surprised using NFP than this method. The key issue I see is that you are reducing God’s gift of sexuality to just your own physical enjoyment. It’s so much more.

I would agree. Even if the point was not your happiness but your spouse’s. I don’t know about birth control - but why would be that issue when that should be up to God - I have never had children and if I do its what God wanted.

 

[ega]

striving:

Is Coitus Interruptus a sin??? We are in our early 50’s and use this as our way of not being “surprised” at our age. We have used NFP in the early stages of our marriage, one unexpected (but wonderful) pregnancy resulted. We have never used any “artificial means”.

The concept it is a sin come from Thomas Aquinas natural law argument that the genitals are primarily procreative. Essentially you are stopping the genitals from fulfilling their purpose. Sex is ‘supposed’ to form a unitive and procreative function, or at least that is the doctrine of the church.

The argument isnt really logical, the same logic makes blindfolds, ear plugs and pain killers sinful too.

Onan, I believe, was actually punished for refusing to get his brothers wife pregnant, as was his duty after his brothers death, according to the rules, not for masturbation.

 

[mosher]

ega:

The concept it is a sin come from Thomas Aquinas natural law argument that the genitals are primarily procreative. Essentially you are stopping the genitals from fulfilling their purpose. Sex is ‘supposed’ to form a unitive and procreative function, or at least that is the doctrine of the church.

The argument isnt really logical, the same logic makes blindfolds, ear plugs and pain killers sinful too.

Onan, I believe, was actually punished for refusing to get his brothers wife pregnant, as was his duty after his brothers death, according to the rules, not for masturbation.

ega while appreciated your opinion on the issue is irrelavent. Striving wanted to know what the Church teaches not what is thought by some to logical or illogical.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

ega:

. . .
Onan, I believe, was actually punished for refusing to get his brothers wife pregnant, as was his duty after his brothers death, according to the rules, not for masturbation.

Where do you get that? The penalty for refusing to take the brother’s wife was much less than death. Deuteronomy 25:5-10

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.
6 The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7 If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ 8 Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ 9 4 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ 10 And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’

 

[Pug]

Joe Kelley:

Where do you get that? The penalty for refusing to take the brother’s wife was much less than death. Deuteronomy 25:5-10

The penalty described (the shoe thing) seems to be for refusal to marry the woman. Onan apparently did marry the woman, as he was having sex with her.

What was in Onan’s heart that he married her, instead of doing the shoe thing and refusing? What a skunk! It almost seems like Tamar was a hot commodity and he wanted to get the inheritance and his brother’s wife. (he would lose the inheritance if Tamar had a son).

 

[ega]

mosher:

ega while appreciated your opinion on the issue is irrelavent. Striving wanted to know what the Church teaches not what is thought by some to logical or illogical.

Lots of Catholics use contraception. They have considered the facts, and have acted on their conscience.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

ega:

Lots of Catholics use contraception. They have considered the facts, and have acted on their conscience.

Unfortunately those Catholics have not acted upon a fully formed conscience. They have looked at the “facts” and decided to follow the way of the world, rather than the way of God. If they truly knew and understood the teachings of the Church on this matter, their conscience would never lead them to contracept.

 

[mairegrrrl]

I am not making a judgement claim but giving you appropriate theological information so you can use your own conscience as neccessary…

Humanae Vitae

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.

 

[mosher]

ega:

Lots of Catholics use contraception. They have considered the facts, and have acted on their conscience.

That does not make them right. Just because a perons acts on their conscience does not mean that they are not committing sin.