Marital sex question

[EasterJoy]

Hm! After reading some of these reactions, I find myself confused and even a bit disgusted by the efforts of the Church to control such intimate matters. Once a couple is joined in marriage, it seems wise to me to let them make decisions as to pregnancy and ways of encouraging or avoiding it. There are so many factors that can enter into that, from financial matters to educational concerns, from physical to psychological issues that may be present, etc.

 There is something troublesome (in my mind) about an all-male, celibate hierarchy establishing rules that apply to intimate married life. I trust decent, loving, responsible husbands and wives to work that out. Now, when it comes to abortion, we're on a different subject entirely.

There is nothing so intimate that it is beyond the reach of both morals and spirituality, and it is the duty of the Church to guide us on matters of spirituality and moral law. To love God with our whole heart, our whole soul, our whole mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves requires a properly formed conscience. Therefore, it is not the Church that is wrong to give clear teaching on how we obliged to conduct ourselves, but we who are wrong when we think there is some aspect of our lives that ought to be kept out of God’s reach.

The Church does not go to this couple and say “you do this” and to another “you do that.” Rather, the Church teaches what is right and what is wrong. That a Catholic would find it “controlling” when those in the Apostolic Succession make a serious effort to properly form his conscience is telling, to say the least. They’re only doing their duty. What you do with that is up to you, but who would hope to be preserved in ignorance so as to be untroubled by conscience when they remove themselves from God’s will? If you think about it in that way, I think you may speak differently on this kind of matter, and stop criticizing moral teachers because they aren’t married.

After all, you have felt free to criticize the heirarchy, even though you are not ordained to lead the faithful. If it is wrong to criticize when you have not been exactly in someone’s situation, why would you feel free to do that? Is there nothing troublesome in your mind about that?

 

[EasterJoy]

1. Non-procreative act: contracepting wife (anti-procreative) + husband (open to life) = both sin (in my mind)

I am not sure. The diffrence is in the type of contraception.

If it is a pill without abortive effects, husband is not sinning, he is not a sinner and he can ask for sex.

If a wife, after the marital act, uses the local contraceptive for destroying sperm without the consent of husband, he is not a sinner and can ask for sex. He is not in the moral obligation, all the time, at each coitus, to say to her, I am not okay with your behavior after the coitus by using the gel for killing my sperms.

If a wife, per se, is under the contraception in the indirect and involuntary manner without abortive effect, they are not sinners. In the facts, this situation is very rare, may be impossible in the state of science (see a doctor).

Go talk to a priest. Not only is your understanding of the practice of medicine incorrect, but this is not what the Church teaches with regards to moral law within marriage, either. Maybe if you hear it from a priest, you’ll believe that.

 

[fpt]

Go talk to a priest. Not only is your understanding of the practice of medicine incorrect, but this is not what the Church teaches with regards to moral law within marriage, either. Maybe if you hear it from a priest, you’ll believe that.

Could you explain to me where are my false understandings, please? I said I am not sure!!!

 

[fpt]

Go talk to a priest. Not only is your understanding of the practice of medicine incorrect, but this is not what the Church teaches with regards to moral law within marriage, either. Maybe if you hear it from a priest, you’ll believe that.

In the catholic couple:

If wife uses contraception (direct and voluntary), it is sinful.

I guess, in general and in theory, that, but I am not sure

The condoms male are sinful for husband and for wife;

The Copper coils – intrauterine system (IUS) or an intrauterine device (IUD) — are sinful for wife and her husband;

Contraceptive implants are sinful for wife and for husband, but if husband is open to life and that the contraceptive implant of his wife has no abortifacient effects, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner.

Cervical caps for wife are sinful for wife and for husband; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has one inside her vagina near the cervix (to confirm), thus if he is in the good faith, he is not a sinner.

Diaphragms for wife are sinful for wife and for husband; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has one inside her vagina near the cervix (to confirm); thus if he is in the good faith, he is not a sinner.

Contraceptive rings are sinful for wife and for husband.

Contraceptive patches are sinful for wife and husband, but if the contraceptive patche has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

Pills of wife (before sex), are sinful for wife and the husband, but if the pill has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

Mini pills of wife are sinful for wife and the husband, but if the mini pill has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

The condoms for wife are sinful for wife and for husband.

Local spermicides, before sex, are sinful for wife and husband, but if husband is open to life, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has local spermicides.

Hormone coils of wife are sinful for wife and for husband, but if husband is open to life and that the Hormone coils of his wife has no abortifacient effects, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner.

I am not sure, I want to share it

 

[Roy5]

The position of the Church strikes me as being confused. I, for one, leave that up to our Christian conscience. I find that many priests feel similarly.

  Perhaps this is not analogy. but I recall during my childhood priests would warn Catholics not to go to a Protestant Church. It was a big, big sin. Suddenly, about 1963, all that changed overnight. It was okay to go to a Protestant Church. In fact, we began to have ecumenical services in Protestant churches.

  I know that there is a standard Catholic explanation for that switch, but it convinces me that the Church has changed and needs to continue to do that. This notion that the Church Fathers somehow are important today is overplayed. I have read much in the Church Fathers and, though brilliant for the times, found much that they wrote primitive, scientifically mistaken, full of superstitions of their era, etc.

  Consider even the Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas. He wrote that heretics should be turned over to the state to be executed! And re-read the 'Syllabus of Errors' by Pius IX, 1864, that castigated democracy, separation of church and state, urged majority-Catholic nations to have Catholicism as their official religion, and much else that the Church doesn't teach today. .

 

[EasterJoy]

In the catholic couple:

If wife uses contraception (direct and voluntary), it is sinful.

I guess, in general and in theory, that, but I am not sure

The condoms male are sinful for husband and for wife;

The Copper coils – intrauterine system (IUS) or an intrauterine device (IUD) — are sinful for wife and her husband;

Contraceptive implants are sinful for wife and for husband, but if husband is open to life and that the contraceptive implant of his wife has no abortifacient effects, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner.

Cervical caps for wife are sinful for wife and for husband; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has one inside her vagina near the cervix (to confirm), thus if he is in the good faith, he is not a sinner.

Diaphragms for wife are sinful for wife and for husband; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has one inside her vagina near the cervix (to confirm); thus if he is in the good faith, he is not a sinner.

Contraceptive rings are sinful for wife and for husband.

Contraceptive patches are sinful for wife and husband, but if the contraceptive patche has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

Pills of wife (before sex), are sinful for wife and the husband, but if the pill has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

Mini pills of wife are sinful for wife and the husband, but if the mini pill has no abortifacient effects and the husband is is open to life, he is not a sinner, she stays a sinner.

The condoms for wife are sinful for wife and for husband.

Local spermicides, before sex, are sinful for wife and husband, but if husband is open to life, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner; but a husband is not in the moral obligation to verify before sex if her wife has local spermicides.

Hormone coils of wife are sinful for wife and for husband, but if husband is open to life and that the Hormone coils of his wife has no abortifacient effects, he is not a sinner, his wife stays a sinner.

I am not sure, I want to share it

OK, first off, let’s get off the “he’s a sinner, she’s a sinner.” a) they’re both sinners, and b) it is much more straight-forward to assess the matter of an act than culpability for it. Let’s stick with the morality of the acts.

If your spouse insists on using contraception, you have a duty to try to persuade them not to. You do not need to abstain from asking for sexual relations entirely, and you certainly do not need to keep them under surveillance to make sure they’re not using contraception behind your back, any more than you have a duty to go sniffing around to make sure they don’t have a lover on the side. Consenting to have sex with someone who has used a medication that might have an abortifacient effect that you do not intend or encourage is not the same as intending to be complicit in abortion. Whether or not she had that intention when she took it, if her husband does not have the intention to have sex that is closed to life, he does not commit a sin by having marital relations with his wife.

If your wife goes to the doctor and is given a medication that could have unintended abortifacient or contraceptive effects, you do not need to stop having sex. As long as she is not taking the medication for the purpose of contraception or abortion, it isn’t even morally wrong for her to choose to take the medication. From a moral standpoint, she is like a woman who is prone to miscarriage for natural reasons: that is, unless some other serious consideration intervenes, there is no reason at all that she may not have sexual relations.

The truth is, if the husband intends to contracept and the wife does not, and they have sex, she might actually conceive after all, because sometimes contraception does not work as planned. If she refuses him, they certainly won’t conceive. Having sex with a spouse who intends to contracept is like having sex with a spouse that you think is infertile for natural reasons. If you are faithful and open to life, you just never know what might happen. As long as you are open to life and do not act so as to frustrate your fertility or that of your spouse, marital sex is lawful for you.

IOW, morally speaking, if something beyond your control, whether your spouse’s choices or natural causes, might reasonable reduce or eliminate the fertility of your spouse, marital relations with your spouse are still lawful for you, and it is the same whether your spouse chose the infertility or tendency towards miscarriage or nature chose it for him or her. You may not be complicit by your silence, but you do not have to withhold sex as a bargaining chip to force your spouse to do the right thing. Rather, your body is still your spouse’s, even if your spouse sins.

If your spouse tries to use sex as a bargaining chip to force you to use contraception, however–“if you don’t go on the PIll or if you don’t use a condom, I won’t have sex with you”–then you are still bound to refuse to use contraception, even if it means giving up sex, as well.

Hope that helps…I need to go!

 

[PennyinCanada]

I haven’t read all the posts. I just want to suggest that if she is still ovulating, she can still “practice” NFP and she will gain confidence in her ability to understand when she has ovulated and when there is a ‘safe’ time. That may help her go back to NFP.

She shouldn’t be going up for the Eucharist. Does she understand that? Not that you need to answer on the forum, but I wouldn’t want her to continue receiving without the knowledge that she shouldn’t be.

 

[fpt]

OK, first off, let’s get off the “he’s a sinner, she’s a sinner.” a) they’re both sinners, and b) it is much more straight-forward to assess the matter of an act than culpability for it. Let’s stick with the morality of the acts.

If your spouse insists on using contraception, you have a duty to try to persuade them not to. You do not need to abstain from asking for sexual relations entirely, and you certainly do not need to keep them under surveillance to make sure they’re not using contraception behind your back, any more than you have a duty to go sniffing around to make sure they don’t have a lover on the side. Consenting to have sex with someone who has used a medication that might have an abortifacient effect that you do not intend or encourage is not the same as intending to be complicit in abortion. Whether or not she had that intention when she took it, if her husband does not have the intention to have sex that is closed to life, he does not commit a sin by having marital relations with his wife.

If your wife goes to the doctor and is given a medication that could have unintended abortifacient or contraceptive effects, you do not need to stop having sex. As long as she is not taking the medication for the purpose of contraception or abortion, it isn’t even morally wrong for her to choose to take the medication. From a moral standpoint, she is like a woman who is prone to miscarriage for natural reasons: that is, unless some other serious consideration intervenes, there is no reason at all that she may not have sexual relations.

The truth is, if the husband intends to contracept and the wife does not, and they have sex, she might actually conceive after all, because sometimes contraception does not work as planned. If she refuses him, they certainly won’t conceive. Having sex with a spouse who intends to contracept is like having sex with a spouse that you think is infertile for natural reasons. If you are faithful and open to life, you just never know what might happen. As long as you are open to life and do not act so as to frustrate your fertility or that of your spouse, marital sex is lawful for you.

IOW, morally speaking, if something beyond your control, whether your spouse’s choices or natural causes, might reasonable reduce or eliminate the fertility of your spouse, marital relations with your spouse are still lawful for you, and it is the same whether your spouse chose the infertility or tendency towards miscarriage or nature chose it for him or her. You may not be complicit by your silence, but you do not have to withhold sex as a bargaining chip to force your spouse to do the right thing. Rather, your body is still your spouse’s, even if your spouse sins.

If your spouse tries to use sex as a bargaining chip to force you to use contraception, however–“if you don’t go on the PIll or if you don’t use a condom, I won’t have sex with you”–then you are still bound to refuse to use contraception, even if it means giving up sex, as well.

Hope that helps…I need to go!

In my side, when I used the word “sinner”, i wanted to say “immoral act” from the person. English is not my mother tongue, thus very often I simplify my thought because the very formal word cannot go out very quickly from my mind. You are right to stay in the morality of the acts.

For husband:

According to the information from french documents that I can read, the key is the type of contraception (no abortifacient effects or abortifacient effects and the types of contraceptive tool that can make a border between the penis and the vagin at the moment of ejaculation: mechanical contraception is always wrong for both, I mean the material tool. (for instance no direct junction at the moment of ejaculation with a male’s condom or a condom of woman . That is immoral for wife and the husband).

If husband is open to life and that objectively according to the state of scientific knowledges (at a moment M), the contraceptive tool has no abortifacient effect, husband can ask the marital act without moral problem in his side. For wife it is different, the contraception is immoral, if it is direct and voluntary.

Mechanical contraception is always wrong for both, I mean the material tool.

Unmechanical contraception without abortifacient effects can be moral for the husband if he is open to the life.

The catholic doctrine is very subtle for protect the innocent spouse.

 

[EasterJoy]

The catholic doctrine is very subtle for protect the innocent spouse.

Meaning that a spouse who opposes the contraception does not have to register their disapproval by abandoning their marital rights. A Catholic cannot cooperate with or fail to object to their spouses intention to contracept, but the spouse does not have to stop having sex when their husband or wife is using contraception over their objections. That is how it has been explained to me.

Contraception as an unintended side-effect of necessary medical treatment, even if it leaves a woman highly prone to miscarriage or failure to implant–that is, if there is a danger it could lead to spontaneous abortion–is not immoral and may be accepted by the patient without violating moral law, provided there is a compelling need for it. A woman who accepts such treatment is not morally required to avoid marital relations. This has been explained many times on CA.

 

[fpt]

Summary of my understanding of the catholic teaching, in theory and in abstracto, about the direct and voluntary contraception within couple for sexually active persons.

Contraception of wife with the female condoms is always immoral for wife and husband. The innocent spouse (here husband), open to the life, in its mind, would be in the moral obligation to refuse the marital act, in this situation.

Contraception of husband with male condoms is always immoral for husband and wife. The innocent spouse (here wife), open to the life, in its mind, would be in the moral obligation to refuse the marital act, in this situation.

Contraception of wife with pills, mini pills, contraceptive patches, contraceptive implants, without abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively) is always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who can ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Contraception of wife with pills, mini pills, contraceptive patches, contraceptive implants, with abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively) is always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who cannot ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Contraception of wife with The Copper coils – intrauterine system (IUS) or an intrauterine device (IUD) — are always immoral for wife and her husband because the abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively), are very probable. The innocent spouse (here husband), open to the life, in its mind, would be in the moral obligation to refuse the marital act, in this situation.

Local spermicides of wife without abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively), are always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who can ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Local spermicides of wife with abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively), are always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who cannot ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Hormone coils of wife without abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively), are always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who can ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Hormone coils of wife with abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively), are always immoral for wife and husband. But her husband, who is open to the life, in its mind, is an innocent spouse who cannot ask, morally speaking, for marital act.

Cervical caps or Diaphragms of wife is always immoral for wife and husband. The innocent spouse (here husband), open to the life, in its mind, would not be in the moral obligation to refuse the marital act, in this situation. He can ask for. (i am not totally certain).

The key for understanding are: abortifacient effects, in the state of scientific knowledges (objectively) or not and mechanic tool of contraception (condoms).

About indirect and involuntary contraception of wife, it is different.

 

[PaulGH]

Yes but the husband can’t be open to life in the second scenario because the act doesn’t call for it; in the first one, he can.

I don’t see the basis for that distinction, but I am fine to let the matter drop at this point.

Okay wait, what you are telling me is the procreative aspect is not required.

What is required is that the married couple should not do anything intentional to sterilize the sex act, i.e. to block the procreative aspect of sex.

But if the procreative aspect of sex is blocked by natural factors or factors beyond the couple’s control, then they can have relations and there is no sin. (Some examples would include having relations when the wife is already pregnant, or during an infertile time of the wife’s cycle, or after the wife has entered menopause, or when one or both spouses have been rendered permanently infertile as an unintended side effect of treating some medical condition.)

 

[Roy5]

Just to reiterate: the Church ought to have sufficient respect for marriage and for the wisdom, integrity and freedom of husbands and wives to let their consciences be their guide when it comes to marital relations. The notion that a hierarchy of celibate males has the right to determine the sex lives of such couples is absurb, and very few Catholics pay it any attention. There certainly is nothing in scripture that touches on this issue. The Onan story, sometimes cited, is gross, and it sheds no light whatsoever on this matter.

 In this time of enormous strides in modern medicine, science has helped people battle the ravages of nature through all manner of surgery, plus medications of countless varieties. If nature had taken its course in millions of situations, millions of those millions would have died. Hasn't that already 'intefered' with nature? A married couple have every right to try to determine the size of their families for the benefit of everyone involved. The line should be drawn at abortion and not by condemning birth control that in many cases prevents abortions. 

 This is a tragic example of the Church trying to exercise control and run our private lives. It also is evidence that the Church too easily is stuck in the past, unable to make necessary adjustments to changing conditions. 'Natural law' can be warped and misused, and here is a prime example.

 

[PaulGH]

Just to reiterate: the Church ought to have sufficient respect for marriage and for the wisdom, integrity and freedom of husbands and wives to let their consciences be their guide when it comes to marital relations.

What if their consciences tell them that it is OK to have an “open” marriage or to engage in spouse-swapping with other couples? Or what if their consciences say that abortion is an acceptable method of family planning? Should their consciences reign supreme, or should there be some authority that calls them to form their consciences properly?

There certainly is nothing in scripture that touches on this issue. The Onan story, sometimes cited, is gross, and it sheds no light whatsoever on this matter.

Which issue? If you mean the issue of contraception, then you cited one Scripture passage that does touch on it (namely the story of Onan). Gross it may be, but that doesn’t mean that we should dismiss it. (Even Martin Luther pointed to this passage as teaching against contraception.)

In this time of enormous strides in modern medicine, science has helped people battle the ravages of nature through all manner of surgery, plus medications of countless varieties. If nature had taken its course in millions of situations, millions of those millions would have died. Hasn’t that already ‘intefered’ with nature?

There is a difference between using medications or surgery to assist the body in working the way it is supposed to work, and using medications or surgery to prevent the body from working the way it is supposed to work (e.g., contraception, which impedes the proper functioning of the reproductive system).

A married couple have every right to try to determine the size of their families for the benefit of everyone involved. The line should be drawn at abortion and not by condemning birth control that in many cases prevents abortions.

And who are you to say that that is where the line should be drawn? You don’t like the idea of “a hierarchy of celibate males” drawing these kinds of lines, but why should I assume that you have any more line-drawing authority than they do?

This is a tragic example of the Church trying to exercise control and run our private lives.

Couldn’t someone say the same about any of the ten commandments (for example), if that person disagreed with that particular commandment?

 

[Roy5]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong. In the case of Onan, the only possible reference, he didn’t want to impregnate his brother’s widow. Can you blame him? Do you think it’s okay to do that.without benefit of marriage, so that your brother has an heir? And, by the way, Luther was far from infallible, of course. In fact, the Church suggested (when I was young) that he was an evil heretic who violated his vows by marrying an ex-nun. Etc. Amazing how the Church has softened its position re Luther in recent years.

 As for an 'open marriage', Jesus clearly forbid adultery. (The Old Testament permitted polygamy. That 'wise' King Solomon, so often quoted, had 700 wives and 300 concubines! David had various wives. Jacob had two wives and at least two concubines. And we could go on.)

 The issue of abortion deals with taking life, which is a long way frrom preventing conception. They belong in different discussions. 

  I was just reading in *Our Sunday Visitor*, which arrived today, that a major effort is being made to silent priests and laity in Europe who are speaking up for marriage of clergy, women priests, etc. I object to this refusal to even allow open and honest discussion of such issues. And then the Church has the gall to argue that attempts are being made to deny it freedom of religion. What freedom do Catholic scholars and others have if (like Kung) they are instructed not to express their opinions any longer? Would the Church want to squash such freedom if it had the power in this or any other nation? I wonder. Fortunately, most American Catholics today seem to think for themselves and not let any hierarchy supercede their own consciences. I even wonder in this current push of the hierarchy over birth control insurance who will lose more - the Obama crowd or the Catholic Church? I have heard some Catholics say that they are angry at the Church for involving itself so blatantly in anti-Obama rhetoric. If Catholics follow the dictates of the church and don't use birth control there should be no issue. So, why all the fuss?

 

[ndeparis88]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong. In the case of Onan, the only possible reference, he didn’t want to impregnate his brother’s widow. Can you blame him? Do you think it’s okay to do that.without benefit of marriage, so that your brother has an heir? And, by the way, Luther was far from infallible, of course. In fact, the Church suggested (when I was young) that he was an evil heretic who violated his vows by marrying an ex-nun. Etc. Amazing how the Church has softened its position re Luther in recent years.

 As for an 'open marriage', Jesus clearly forbid adultery. (The Old Testament permitted polygamy. That 'wise' King Solomon, so often quoted, had 700 wives and 300 concubines! David had various wives. Jacob had two wives and at least two concubines. And we could go on.)

 The issue of abortion deals with taking life, which is a long way frrom preventing conception. They belong in different discussions. 

  I was just reading in *Our Sunday Visitor*, which arrived today, that a major effort is being made to silent priests and laity in Europe who are speaking up for marriage of clergy, women priests, etc. I object to this refusal to even allow open and honest discussion of such issues. And then the Church has the gall to argue that attempts are being made to deny it freedom of religion. What freedom do Catholic scholars and others have if (like Kung) they are instructed not to express their opinions any longer? Would the Church want to squash such freedom if it had the power in this or any other nation? I wonder. Fortunately, most American Catholics today seem to think for themselves and not let any hierarchy supercede their own consciences. I even wonder in this current push of the hierarchy over birth control insurance who will lose more - the Obama crowd or the Catholic Church? I have heard some Catholics say that they are angry at the Church for involving itself so blatantly in anti-Obama rhetoric. If Catholics follow the dictates of the church and don't use birth control there should be no issue. So, why all the fuss?

There doesn’t just need to be a bible reference in order to see that birth control is contrary to God. It’s not about taking “orders” from a man in a hat. I’s about loving God, you want to love God don’t you. God is the creator if life, and as such we are made in his image, which includes when we are in the human union on earth called marriage we are called to transmit human life like God transmits life. For a man truly love his wife he must respect the gift of life that she can conceive. A man who tries to push the pill in his wife or she try to convince herself, is only denying the depth of the human condition.

The reason why there is an use between Catholic Church and Obama is the fact that if he and his people get there way we won’t have a choice, We will have to hand it out, even though we do not believe in it or we will have to close up shop. That is not liberty. how would you like it if he came down to you and said “Roy5, I know you believe in not handing drugs out to people, but if you don’t I’m going to shut you down even though it’s because of your belief as a Christian to not do such a thing”. Can you see how that really doesn’t Emulate the religious liberty rights in the constitution. I’m not forcing you to believe what I believe , but Obama is trying to to do that to us, and jot just us but Lutherans , Jews, Muslims who actually really don’t believe in using contraception. Of course there are secular Jews you may see around but they are actually heretics to their own faith in the end.

 

[Andre1000]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong.

But sacred Tradition tells so and the sacred Tradition is as important as the sacred Scripture and tells us what Jesus wants.

 

[PaulGH]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that birth control is wrong. In the case of Onan, the only possible reference . . . .

That’s not the only possible reference. What about “be fruitful and multiply”? What about the many times in the Old Testament when children are clearly portrayed as a blessing, and infertility is clearly portrayed as a tragedy? But of course all of this misses the root issue on which we probably disagree, which is why does something have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true?

As for an ‘open marriage’, Jesus clearly forbid adultery. (The Old Testament permitted polygamy. That ‘wise’ King Solomon, so often quoted, had 700 wives and 300 concubines! David had various wives. Jacob had two wives and at least two concubines. And we could go on.)

 The issue of abortion deals with taking life, which is a long way frrom preventing conception. They belong in different discussions.

But the issue I was getting at was not really about open marriages or about abortion, but rather about the primacy of conscience. If conscience should reign supreme in one case (contraception), why should it not reign supreme in other cases (e.g., open marriages or abortion)?

I was just reading in Our Sunday Visitor, which arrived today, that a major effort is being made to silent priests and laity in Europe who are speaking up for marriage of clergy, women priests, etc. I object to this refusal to even allow open and honest discussion of such issues.

If a priest were denying the divinity of Christ, or denying the doctrine of the Trinity, would you say the same thing? Would that just be part of “an open an honest discussion”? Or would the church have just cause to act against that priest? Those cases are different from the issue of women priests only in terms of degree, because they all involve the denial of established and unchangeable doctrines.

And then the Church has the gall to argue that attempts are being made to deny it freedom of religion.

If the HHS mandate is not modified or eliminated, many Catholic schools, charities, hospitals, radio stations, and other organizations will be forced either to act against their religious beliefs, or to pay crippling fines that will likely cause many of them to close. How is that anything but an assault on freedom of religion?

 

[Roy5]

That’s not the only possible reference. What about “be fruitful and multiply”? What about the many times in the Old Testament when children are clearly portrayed as a blessing, and infertility is clearly portrayed as a tragedy? But of course all of this misses the root issue on which we probably disagree, which is why does something have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true?

The Catholic Church permits ‘natural birth control’ so it already allows couples to decide whether or not to 'be fruitful and mutiply. Children are a blessing. We all know that. But when I was a child a woman ‘down the road’ from our farm tried to kill herself because she became pregnant for the - I believe it was 14th or so time. Married couples should be able to ‘make love’ in a romantic, bonding fashion without the Church condemning them for wanting to space their children. Spacing one’s children is a plus, not a minor. It is best for the parents, the children, the pocketbook, etc. This insistence upon following tradition for tradition sake is seriously hurting the Church. But apparently those in charge don’t care. Tradition over common sense!

But the issue I was getting at was not really about open marriages or about abortion, but rather about the primacy of conscience. If conscience should reign supreme in one case (contraception), why should it not reign supreme in other cases (e.g., open marriages or abortion)?

Conscience is one factor to consider. If someone wants to kill someone and does - and his or her conscience doesn’t bother him - why, of course that is a major sin. (Well, unless we are misled into another war. Remember how the Pope condemned the US attack on Iraq?) I never happened to use birth control, frankly, because we were happy to welcome another child or two. But not five or 10 or 15. God is reasonable and doesn’t want us to be irresponsible. Besides, sadly many unplanned, unwanted children are aborted. I’d much prefer that they not be conceived than aborted. But the Church seems to equate the two. Not wise. Makes the Church appear medieval, more interested in authority over its flock than willing to admit new ways of living intelligently.

If a priest were denying the divinity of Christ, or denying the doctrine of the Trinity, would you say the same thing? Would that just be part of “an open an honest discussion”? Or would the church have just cause to act against that priest? Those cases are different from the issue of women priests only in terms of degree, because they all involve the denial of established and unchangeable doctrines.

Doctrine is something else. I don’t regard birth control as doctrine. But I don’t want to argue the point. Most Catholics believe in birth control, and they are not dummies. Many have left the Church because of this sort of close-mindedness of the Church. I know, I know. The Church can’t be wrong. I well recall when it was a sin to even enter a Protestant Church! I remember when Luther and other Reformers were evil, corrupt, selfish, miserable instruments of Satan! Now we hear a different song sung.
If the HHS mandate is not modified or eliminated, many Catholic schools, charities, hospitals, radio stations, and other organizations will be forced either to act against their religious beliefs, or to pay crippling fines that will likely cause many of them to close. How is that anything but an assault on freedom of religion?

I happen to agree with the Church on this question. although I think the Church’s response sounds too much like a partisan get-Obama line. I am interested in knowing how avid Catholic Democrats are reacting to this. I am Independent, myself, rather skeptical of them all.

 

[Roy5]

PaulGH and others

I guess I messed up my responses in my last post. Don't know how I did it. In any case, my responses are paragraphs in between your paragraphs. Hope you can make them out.

I make no apologies for being an advocate of major changes in the Church. I am well aware that these are unpopular, but might as well be honest and say what I think.

 

[Roxygirl1488]

yes it is a sin, a mortal sin and you can go to hell no if ands or buts, this is not directed towards the poster the comment I am about to make but I am so sick of cafeteria Catholics, you can’t pick and choose what you want to believe about the faith, if you don’t except what our Church teaches then your not Catholic even if you think you are, your a heretic.