T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Goodness, it is after 10 p.m. Will check back tomorrow or Thursday to see what’s going on.
- Status
S
svoboda
Guest
Tantum ergo:
Okay, but I hope you read my last response to you.
S
stadre
Guest
Of course it doesn’t mean that the acts aren’t sinful. It does suggest that the act of contracepting was worthy of death. Looking at the requirements for a personal sin to be a mortal one, perhaps Tamar does not have full knowledge and consent? Onan most certainly had both. (just speculating, I admit
)As you quoted before, God was offended by the action (spilling the seed, AKA contracepting) and killed him.
Agreed!
S
svoboda
Guest
I don’t know. Tamar disguised herself, waited for Judah, pretended to be a prostitute, and even took tokens from him for later evidence. That seems pretty deliberate and planned. Hard to believe that she wouldn’t know that sex outside of marriage/prostitution are sins. Judah saw what he thought was a prostitute on the side of the road and was ready to go at it.Of course it doesn’t mean that the acts aren’t sinful. It does suggest that the act of contracepting was worthy of death. Looking at the requirements for a personal sin to be a mortal one, perhaps Tamar does not have full knowledge and consent? Onan most certainly had both. (just speculating, I admit
To me those are very basic sins that are obvious, unlike birth control.
Was God offended by his spilling the seed in itself, or by his spilling the seed to avoid making offspring for his brother? We don’t know.
We don’t know if God would have punished a man for spilling the seed to have 5 kids instead of 15. If contraception is such an important sin, something God killed a man for (even though he didn’t kill for fornication/prostitution) then why didn’t God explicitly condemn it elsewhere?
Why aren’t there explicit laws against it in Deutoronomy or Exodus or Leviticus? Those books have laws about virtually every behavior of Jewish life.
S
stadre
Guest
I have seen that you do not agree with what you believe to be the Church’s teaching re: contraception. Once you find out what the Church actually teaches, perhaps you will see it a little clearer. I agree that these are very obvious sins. Also, perhaps there were circumstances that made her unable to give full consent. (Again with a speculation on my part–I am not saying it is so
.) Regardless, it does give an indicator to how much God despises contraception.I have to keep coming back to this because you said, on more than one occasion that it is reading into it to see that it condemns the contraceptive act. I have pointed out several times that it would be reading into it otherwise as the actual quote is, “What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” We do know unless you want to put other meanings into it!
God does explicity condemn it elsewhere. Check out the teachings of His Church in which He left authority to “bind and loose”!
I suggest you start with Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West. Contraception is condemed in all forms throughout the Bible.
- Trying to keep the sperm from joining with the egg as seen in these passages. (ie. withdrawal, barrier methods)
- Sterilization as seen in Deuteronomy 23:2. (besides permanent sterilization, there is also temperary sterilization of BCP, IUD)
- Exodus 20:13 (besided the obvious ban on abortion, this would also include BCP and IUD due the the abortifacient aspects of them)
Also, read Ephesians 5. There is nothing self-gifting about contracepted sex.
S
svoboda
Guest
- A woman kills a man because she doesn’t like him
- A woman kills a man because she thinks he is about to rape her (even though he is not).
- A man spills his semen on the ground because he doesn’t want to make offspring for his brother inspite of laws saying he must do this.
- A man spills his semen on the ground to limit the number of children he and his wife will have.
In the second situation God punishes onan for spilling his semen on the ground to avoid making offspring for his brother. Does it mean that spilling semen on the ground to have fewer children is also a sin?
But he doesn’t condemn it anywhere in scripture, that’s what I meant.
Deutoronomy 23:2:
2
"No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the LORD.
…First of all, look at the verse right after it:
3
No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the LORD, nor any descendant of his even to the tenth generation.
… Does it mean it is a sin to be a child of an incestuous union? Maybe the man’s testicles were crushed not with the intent to sterilize but by someone else’s violence on him.
Look at this also:
Leviticus 21
16
The LORD said to Moses,
17
**“Speak to Aaron and tell him: None of your descendants, of whatever generation, who has any defect shall come forward to offer up the food of his God. **
18
**Therefore, he who has any of the following defects may not come forward: he who is blind, or lame, or who has any disfigurement or malformation, **
19
or a crippled foot or hand,
20
or who is hump-backed or weakly or walleyed, or who is afflicted with eczema, ringworm or hernia.
21
No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such defect may draw near to offer up the oblations of the LORD; on account of his defect he may not draw near to offer up the food of his God.
22
He may, however, partake of the food of his God: of what is most sacred as well as of what is sacred.
23
Only, he may not approach the veil nor go up to the altar on account of his defect; he shall not profane these things that are sacred to me, for it is I, the LORD, who make them sacred.”
24
Moses, therefore, told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.
… Maybe missing genitals is just a disfigurment
S
stadre
Guest
svoboda said:
Number 2 is clearly a sin.
It is never morally licit to use contraception in any form.
Why does it need to be elsewhere, Scripture or other writings? If there was a verse in the Bible that said, “thou shalt not contracept,” would that be enough for you? Or would you turn still tell me that it only means in certain situations?
B
bear06
Guest
I think if we didn’t have so much AIDS in the world, which condom use is contributing to, we’d have a lot more money to feed the poor. But no, we give them condoms and tell them this will protect them and when it doesn’t we have yet another person’s health situation to take care of. Once again, ABC doesn’t fix the problems of the world, it exacerbates them. Who do you think is doing the greatest good in Africa? Do you really think it’s the UN or is it just possibly the Catholic Church? When the Catholic Church comes in, they teach morality, start schools, clinics, farms, etc. What does the UN do? Raises money that never gets to the poor, passes out condoms and sterilizes people, embezzles the money sent to “help the poor”, etc. They are a major political corporation not a charitable organization. They will help if you agree to x, y and z. The Catholic Church will help even if you don’t buy into their beliefs. Mother Teresa was a perfect example of this.
S
stadre
Guest
Sorry, I posted too soon!
svoboda:
Maybe it is just a disfigurement. Then, aren’t we fortunate that God has the wisdom to give us a teaching authority on faith and morals?!
S
stadre
Guest
S
svoboda
Guest
[/quote]
You put emphasis on “did”, those women did the same thing, one was sinful the other wasn’t.
I edited my post above analyzing the verse you gave, but you responded to quickly!
You put emphasis on “did”, those women did the same thing, one was sinful the other wasn’t.
Most people disagree, and as far as I know Catholicism is the only religion that forbids birht control.
I don’t think contraception is a sin, abortion is, abortifacent contraception is but only becaues the destroy unborn human life, not because they prevent pregnancy. I dont’ believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God either, I think a lot of things in the Bible have nothing to do with God.
I edited my post above analyzing the verse you gave, but you responded to quickly!
S
svoboda
Guest
I am not sure that he did. Some of the things the Church teaches in my opinion clash with basic moral principles.
I think our moral conscience is the authority.
B
bear06
Guest
And thus why this conversation is pointless. Catholics don’t interpret the Bible for themselves. God gave us the Church to do this so we would all be on the same page and avoid moral relativism.
S
stadre
Guest
Sorry, it must be late–I still am
!!Agreement by a majority of people, does not make an action right or wrong. When all of Christianity condemns contaception for 1900 years, that should count for something. It also makes the theology of Christianity (other than Catholic) less credible that they can say it is definitely sinful and then change it to not only sinful but the right thing to do!
Svoboda, you said that you have left the Church because you lost faith. That will certainly effect how you see things. Still, I urge you to read that book I suggested. It will clear up for you why we believe what we do (and it is a very easy read). Even if you disagree, you will know what we are thinking and why we feel so strongly about it.
I hope you don’t mind if I include you and your intentions in my prayers tonight. I ask that you do the same. Have a good night!
S
svoboda
Guest
You said that God punished Onan for what he DID, implying that it was the action of spilling the seed not that he did it for the purpose of disobeying law requiring him to continue his brother’s line and not making offspring for this brother that offended God.Sorry, it must be late–I still am
I gave that example to contradict this thinking.
A woman can kill a man because she doesn’t like him, Or a woman can kill a man because she believes he’s going to rape her.
The action is the same in both cases, the intention is very different. Killing a man because you don’t like him is murder and gravely evil. Killing a man because you believe he’s about to rape you is self defense and is perfectly legitimate.
Similarly, a man can spill the seed on purpose to prevent himself from continuing his brother’s line (even though it was his duty to do so back then). Or a man can spill the seed to limit the size of his family.
The action is the same both in the case of the killing and the case of the spilling of the seed, the DO the same thing. BUT, they do it for different reasons. And maybe it’s the reasons that make the sin, not the action itself.
Thanks for your prayers, goodnight.
S
stadre
Guest
Understood. Of course that would be the topic of another thread (or many other threads)! I hope you take them up because the God’s Word is the basis for all basic moral principles.
We believe that there has to be a higher authority. Otherwise, one would be able to argue that it is OK, according to his own moral authority, to walk down the street and murder someone, simply because that person is the fourth person the murderer saw wearing jeans that day! (as a stupid example)
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
K
Kendy
Guest
Rob's Wife:
Rob’s Wife,
I am not saying that we should write off anyone. I am saying individuals often have tough decisions to make given certain situations that are beyond their control. There is simply not enough people putting enough resources into making sure that poor women can have one more child.
Kendy
Rob’s Wife,
I am not saying that we should write off anyone. I am saying individuals often have tough decisions to make given certain situations that are beyond their control. There is simply not enough people putting enough resources into making sure that poor women can have one more child.
Kendy
R
RyanL
Guest
Svoboda,
I realize that I am coming into this discussion rather late, and I confess that I have not read the whole thread. That said, perhaps I can share some information with you that might prove pertinent.
Cardinal Hummes wrote the following to the President on 22 Sep 2003:
So let’s talk a bit about ABC and marriage. In marriage, we engage in love which teaches us about the inner mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, as well as the love between Christ and the Church. At its root, this love is both unitive and creative.
If we divorce one of these elements from the marital union, we are denying the teaching aspect of the union with regards to God and our relationship with Him.
If we divorce the unitive aspect, say in the case of rape without contraception, it is an unholy union. I don’t think there is dispute here.
If we divorce the creative aspect, as in the case with ABC, the marital union is likewise other than it is intended to be. It ceases to teach us about the true nature of God and our relationship with Him, and instead seeks to serve merely the pleasure function of marital congress. This is a misuse of the gift of sex which God has given us, and perverts the understanding of both the Trinity and Christ’s relationship with the Church.
It is true that this is higher level theological dicta, but as the Latin phrase goes, “Lex orandi, lex credendi” - we pray what we believe. This works in reverse as well - we believe what we pray, and make no mistake; we can and do pray with our bodies.
So what is there to be done when a girl is used as a sex slave in a “marriage” to an older and sexually depraved man? Well, for starters this is very likely not a sacramental marriage (as consent is defective due to age/duress/etc.). Because this is not a sacramental marriage, marital debt does not exist. The wife “owes” no duty to her husband. Does this then mean that we are free to sin within the “marriage”? Is it the case that once the marital union is corrupted, anything goes? I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe that you can make something right by compounding the distortions. You cannot make a lie the truth by adding more lies, which is exactly what occurs when either party attempts to lie with their bodies by misusing the gift of sex. This only makes the lie bigger, and any lie is an offense to the truth (and the Truth isn’t a something, it’s a somebody). There are really only two ways to make this right - 1) separate the union or 2) sanctify the union by making it sacramental (which means between two Christians and with God at the heart of the marriage).
So what can be done? Sadly, it’s a very tough case. Crisis centers are being made available where impoverished and trapped women can escape abusive relationships, evangelization is attempted to bring the abuser to a personal relationship with Christ (which will end the abuse through repentance), abstinence courses are taught which help people to understand how to rely on God’s design of our reproductive systems to minimize the cases of malnourishment, as well as charity and outreach programs. The Church is providing all of these. The Church is not, however, attempting to encourage people to further distort their “marital” unions by denying the truths revealed to us about the Most Holy Trinity or the relationship between Christ and the Church.
As the bumper sticker says, “Trying to stop AIDS by handing out condoms is like trying to stop domestic abuse by handing out boxing gloves.” You cannot undue the evils which are the result of an action without first stopping the root cause of the evils. Does that make sense?
God Bless,
RyanL
I realize that I am coming into this discussion rather late, and I confess that I have not read the whole thread. That said, perhaps I can share some information with you that might prove pertinent.
Cardinal Hummes wrote the following to the President on 22 Sep 2003:
So the Church is most definitely interested in the welfare of Africans and the HIV/AIDS community. The ABC stance is not taken with a deaf ear.
So let’s talk a bit about ABC and marriage. In marriage, we engage in love which teaches us about the inner mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, as well as the love between Christ and the Church. At its root, this love is both unitive and creative.
If we divorce one of these elements from the marital union, we are denying the teaching aspect of the union with regards to God and our relationship with Him.
If we divorce the unitive aspect, say in the case of rape without contraception, it is an unholy union. I don’t think there is dispute here.
If we divorce the creative aspect, as in the case with ABC, the marital union is likewise other than it is intended to be. It ceases to teach us about the true nature of God and our relationship with Him, and instead seeks to serve merely the pleasure function of marital congress. This is a misuse of the gift of sex which God has given us, and perverts the understanding of both the Trinity and Christ’s relationship with the Church.
It is true that this is higher level theological dicta, but as the Latin phrase goes, “Lex orandi, lex credendi” - we pray what we believe. This works in reverse as well - we believe what we pray, and make no mistake; we can and do pray with our bodies.
So what is there to be done when a girl is used as a sex slave in a “marriage” to an older and sexually depraved man? Well, for starters this is very likely not a sacramental marriage (as consent is defective due to age/duress/etc.). Because this is not a sacramental marriage, marital debt does not exist. The wife “owes” no duty to her husband. Does this then mean that we are free to sin within the “marriage”? Is it the case that once the marital union is corrupted, anything goes? I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe that you can make something right by compounding the distortions. You cannot make a lie the truth by adding more lies, which is exactly what occurs when either party attempts to lie with their bodies by misusing the gift of sex. This only makes the lie bigger, and any lie is an offense to the truth (and the Truth isn’t a something, it’s a somebody). There are really only two ways to make this right - 1) separate the union or 2) sanctify the union by making it sacramental (which means between two Christians and with God at the heart of the marriage).
So what can be done? Sadly, it’s a very tough case. Crisis centers are being made available where impoverished and trapped women can escape abusive relationships, evangelization is attempted to bring the abuser to a personal relationship with Christ (which will end the abuse through repentance), abstinence courses are taught which help people to understand how to rely on God’s design of our reproductive systems to minimize the cases of malnourishment, as well as charity and outreach programs. The Church is providing all of these. The Church is not, however, attempting to encourage people to further distort their “marital” unions by denying the truths revealed to us about the Most Holy Trinity or the relationship between Christ and the Church.
As the bumper sticker says, “Trying to stop AIDS by handing out condoms is like trying to stop domestic abuse by handing out boxing gloves.” You cannot undue the evils which are the result of an action without first stopping the root cause of the evils. Does that make sense?
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
Quite right; there is a *mens rea *and an actus reus - an intent and an action - which must both be present for culpability to be attached. That said, certain forms of actus reus are always wrong, no matter the intention. Example: killing an innocent human being. There is never a case where this is “right”, though you may construct situations where it is a “lesser evil”. It can be justified, but it is always wrong. You cannot construct a situation where the intentional killing of an innocent human being is a moral “good” in and of itself.
Similarly, there are certain forms of mens rea that are always wrong, no matter the act. Malice is an example. Even a charitable act done with malice is always wrong.
As a Church, we cannot permit either the *actus reus *or the mens rea to be wrong. We cannot endorse any action or intent which is inherently wrong, just as we cannot say that the ends always justify the means.
As for what the actus reus is in this particular instance, please see my post above.
God Bless,
RyanL
P.S.,
If you want to read what the Church has to say about these things, you may want to google search as follows: aids africa site:vatican.va. This search will turn up over 220 hits, and many of the hits are exactly on point.
- Status