NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

The attempts ad nauseam to discredit the Popes and the faithful Catholic apologists on everything is symptomatic of the dissenter. Here it is because it doesn’t suit the poster.

Question was asked with full respect to you, and all people who agree with your stance.

The Church has affirmed his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, and this is the teaching.

But if coitus interruptus is sinful on account that it stops procreation, why Tamar didn’t report such acts to elders? It was her duty!

The Church uses Humanae Vitae (HV) 14 and 16 and Familiaris Consortio (FC) 32 as the references for contraception in the Catechism. And FC #32 refers also to HV #12, 13, 14, and Gaudium et Spies #51, which in turn, item 51 refers to Casti Connubii. Casti Connubii cites Onan in Genesis. The act of masturbation is prohibited for the same reason as contraception.

We have already provided reasons why these documents are problematic. They boycott the stoic influence expressed in 19 centuries of Catholic faith.

 

[Chrono13]

This is a beautiful quote, thanks, and I think it applies as much today as when St.Augustine first wrote it.

St.Paul teaches that the marital embrace may be used to combat lust but that it is permissable, not obligatory to do so.

But Augustine sees this permission as a proof that sex is sinful in itself. It is very clear from the quote.

St.Augustine’s comment is on the inherent sinfulness in fighting lust with sex, likely due to our fallen nature, rather than any sin attatched to the embrace itself.

What do you mean “inherent sinfulness in fighting lust with (marital) sex”? Is marital sex inherent with sin?

We’re looking specifically at Song of Songs, not outside it, so I don’t follow your comment.

But that is important part of the system. Nobody attacked the sexuality in Song of Songs, because everybody said there is no sex in it. Jerome even said it speaks of virginity, and ridiculed those who said it is about marriage. And it was like this up to 19th century.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13
the stoic influence expressed in 19 centuries of Catholic faith.

Not expressed by Christ’s Church.
It is Christ’s Catholic Church through Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Fathers and Doctors, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium which has raised marriage to the height of a sacrament and from the beginning protected the sanctity of the marital union from the errors of the Manicheans, the Stoics, from abortion and contraception and every other perversion of reason and faith.

tinyurl.com/3bhcaqv
**Morality
Of Genesis 38 verses 8-10:
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on Mar-01-2009: **
“Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Augustine, the foremost Traditional source of marriage doctrine, dogmatically declared that this is indeed the proper interpretation of this Biblical teaching:
‘Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” Orthodox Jews have always interpreted the story of Onan in the same way: “The classical Jewish commentators—who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres—certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such. A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: “[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death.” All 3 of the major Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Wesley) left writings that confirm this interpretation of the Onan story. Although we don’t typically turn to these men for Catholic doctrine, they demonstrate that this has been the interpretation “always and everywhere.’ ”

 

[razredge]

It isn’t condoned, but it’s only condemned in modern writings. Christ or God never said it was bad, only men with pencils and writing objects did. Scripture is just scripture, it’s not the voice of God. It’s up to you if you want to have faith in man or God. I choose not to put too much faith into man, especially on extreme points of view. We know no one in this world is without flaws, and often put beliefs on people for their own agendas.

Well said - the real question is does God care.

Unfortunately at times, the Church often seems rather like the Pharisees and Saduccees that opposed Jesus with all their laws and ritual.

 

[Muze]

Not expressed by Christ’s Church.
It is Christ’s Catholic Church through Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Fathers and Doctors, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium which has raised marriage to the height of a sacrament and from the beginning protected the sanctity of the marital union from the errors of the Manicheans, the Stoics, from abortion and contraception and every other perversion of reason and faith.

tinyurl.com/3bhcaqv
**Morality
Of Genesis 38 verses 8-10:
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on Mar-01-2009: **
“Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Augustine, the foremost Traditional source of marriage doctrine, dogmatically declared that this is indeed the proper interpretation of this Biblical teaching:
‘Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” Orthodox Jews have always interpreted the story of Onan in the same way: “The classical Jewish commentators—who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres—certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such. A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: “[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death.” All 3 of the major Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Wesley) left writings that confirm this interpretation of the Onan story. Although we don’t typically turn to these men for Catholic doctrine, they demonstrate that this has been the interpretation “always and everywhere.’ ”

I’ll ask this again: Had Onan used NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar, would he still have been put to death?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’ll ask this again: Had Onan used NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar, would he still have been put to death?

I don’t think he would have…he would be having relations to completion with his wife.

Granted, I’m not sure how much he could have done so without her cooperation. If he was avoiding her when she was fertile, she might have taken something to increase her fertility, like the mandrakes Rachel and Leah were fighting over.

Not having relations by mutual consent is not sinful…I’m not sure what the teachings were for “rendering the marital debt” were for the Jews at the time, or if a husband was required to render any debt to his wife.

 

[Chrono13]

Not expressed by Christ’s Church.
It is Christ’s Catholic Church through Her Sacred Scriptures, Her Fathers and Doctors, Her Tradition and Her Magisterium which has raised marriage to the height of a sacrament and from the beginning protected the sanctity of the marital union from the errors of the Manicheans, the Stoics, from abortion and contraception and every other perversion of reason and faith.

Marriage has been proclaimed with high regard. But marital act- not.

tinyurl.com/3bhcaqv
**Morality
Of Genesis 38 verses 8-10:
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on Mar-01-2009: **
“Pope Pius XI, quoting St. Augustine, the foremost Traditional source of marriage doctrine, dogmatically declared that this is indeed the proper interpretation of this Biblical teaching:
‘Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

This is the problem with Casti Connubii. Tradition has never been that conjugal act’s nature is *primarily *procreative, but *exclusively * procreative. There were no reasons for intercourse apart from procreation-even marital debt was against natural law, but permitted on account of marriage. And this is also why NFP was an issue.

To say otherwise would be denial of reality, and huge sacrificies laymen gave in order to follow the teachings.

Orthodox Jews have always interpreted the story of Onan in the same way: “The classical Jewish commentators—who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres—certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such. A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: “[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death.” All 3 of the major Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Wesley) left writings that confirm this interpretation of the Onan story. Although we don’t typically turn to these men for Catholic doctrine, they demonstrate that this has been the interpretation “always and everywhere.’ ”

Most of this interpretators differ in some way from the other. For example, classical Jewish commentators allow the pill (since the issue in their world is destruction of semen). But the question remains unanswered- why Tamar did not report coitus interruptus? It would be nice to hear their opinion as well.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What an excellent point. I never thought of it quite that way before. :tiphat:

I’m impressed that anyone is still following this thread! It’s a shame that some people think (or think Catholicism teaches) sex is inherently bad.

But Augustine sees this permission as a proof that sex is sinful in itself. It is very clear from the quote.

St. Augustine is clear, “…*the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful…”. *

What do you mean “inherent sinfulness in fighting lust with (marital) sex”? Is marital sex inherent with sin?.

Most of us experience lust. The unmarried are called to conquer that lust, with God’s grace, through continence. Some married people have the gift of continence while others, with no serious reason to avoid sex, may conquer their lustful urges through marital relations. This second option involves gratification of the flesh. Because of our fallen nature, it’s hard for us to experience flesly gratification without selfishness and sin. So no, marital sex isn’t inherent with sin, we are.

But that is important part of the system. Nobody attacked the sexuality in Song of Songs, because everybody said there is no sex in it. Jerome even said it speaks of virginity, and ridiculed those who said it is about marriage. And it was like this up to 19th century.

The sexuality is in the narrative. The minute we say it’s ‘about’ something, we’re into allegory. You know I’m going to ask you for a link to your source from Jerome’s quote so I can read it first hand, right.

 

[Chrono13]

St. Augustine is clear, “…*the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful…”. *

Yes- but how many people have sex for the purpose of procreating children? We are not talking about being open to life, Augustine speaks of intent of the act.

Most of us experience lust. The unmarried are called to conquer that lust, with God’s grace, through continence. Some married people have the gift of continence while others, with no serious reason to avoid sex, may conquer their lustful urges through marital relations. This second option involves gratification of the flesh. Because of our fallen nature, it’s hard for us to experience flesly gratification without selfishness and sin. So no, marital sex isn’t inherent with sin, we are.

I could actually agree, but that is not what we are teach people. We teach them sexuality is wonderful present of one human being to other, and giving is never selfish nor sinful.

Do you think it is possible to experience flesly gratification without selfishness and sin? Or we are too weak, and sin with each intercourse because of ourselves?

[The sexuality is in the narrative.

To clergy, it was not.

You know I’m going to ask you for a link to your source from Jerome’s quote so I can read it first hand, right.

Yup
fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/jerome-songofsongs.html
[/quote]

 

[Muze]

I don’t think he would have…he would be having relations to completion with his wife.

Granted, I’m not sure how much he could have done so without her cooperation. If he was avoiding her when she was fertile, she might have taken something to increase her fertility, like the mandrakes Rachel and Leah were fighting over.

Not having relations by mutual consent is not sinful…I’m not sure what the teachings were for “rendering the marital debt” were for the Jews at the time, or if a husband was required to render any debt to his wife.

Well, this is just plain silly for one reason:

Onan was put to death for not bearing a child for his dead brother. Thus, any method used to avoid conception, and thus avoid raising a son for his brother would have resulted in being put to death as happened to his other brother, who flat out refused and was put to death. Go read it for yourself.

You see, this is what happens when you listen to the doctrine and don;t bother to read the story for yourself.

Thus, your judgment is incorrect, but your answer exposes why the RCC position on this based upon Onan is hypocritical.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well, this is just plain silly for one reason:

Onan was put to death for not bearing a child for his dead brother. Thus, any method used to avoid conception, and thus avoid raising a son for his brother would have resulted in being put to death as happened to his other brother, who flat out refused and was put to death. Go read it for yourself.

You see, this is what happens when you listen to the doctrine and don;t bother to read the story for yourself.

Thus, your judgment is incorrect, but your answer exposes why the RCC position on this based upon Onan is hypocritical.

Judah took a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

7 But Er, Judah’s first-born, offended Yahweh, and Yahweh killed him.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Take your brother’s wife, and do your duty as her brother-in-law, to maintain your brother’s line.’

9 But Onan, knowing that the line would not count as his, spilt his seed on the ground every time he slept with his brother’s wife, to avoid providing offspring for his brother.

10 What he did was offensive to Yahweh, who killed him too.

1. We do not know what Er’s offense was.
2. But Onan, knowing that the line would not count as his, spilt his seed on the ground every time he slept with his brother’s wife, to avoid providing offspring for his brother

He approached his wife every time with the intent of being intimate, not finishing poperly and not fathering (not bearing — men do not bear children)

If, NFP were around back then Onan could not have practiced NFP without his wife’s cooperation. How would he know she were fertile, other than counting her days?

His wife was interested in having a child so greatly that she tricked her own father in law. She prostituted herself to him, became pregnant and was not punished at all…

 

[Abu]

Muze, #287
Onan was put to death for not bearing a child for his dead brother…. the RCC position on this based upon Onan is hypocritical.

False, and frightfully misunderstood.

Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN)on May-14-2006:
"There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:

25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, —‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, — ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, — ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

“The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”

 

[Warrior1979]

"The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception.

Since Onan is obviously not the only one who has done this, it begs the question as to why only one person in the history of man has suffered this penalty.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
Since Onan is obviously not the only one who has done this, it begs the question as to why only one person in the history of man has suffered this penalty.

Hardly. If everyone was killed by God for every grave sin there would be hardly anyone left alive.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13, #284
This is the problem with Casti Connubii. Tradition has never been that conjugal act’s nature is primarily procreative, but exclusively procreative.

The superior arrogance of the dissenter is unable to understand much less assent to doctrine as in Casti Connubii.
The Father’s of the Church attested that the joyful unitive aspect of marriage flowed from marital intercourse when it is open to new life. To misrepresent them so as to try to show the Magisterium wrong is ineffectual.

forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=315
In another homily, St. John Chrysostom went on to say:
“The procreation of children in marriage is the ‘heritage’ and ‘reward’ of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.’” 19
Note
19. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 20, PG.

St Augustine:
"It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the sole will of generating: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault. I am supposing that then, although you are not lying for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.”
24. St. Augustine, “Marriage and Concupiscence” 1.15.17

 

[Chrono13]

False, and frightfully misunderstood.

Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN)on May-14-2006:
"There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:

25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, —‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, — ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, — ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

“The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”

Echert doesn’t seem to stress the fact that Onan refused to take Tamar in procreative way, and she didn’t see this as issue. Even after Onan was slayed, she did not claim it was because of coitus interruptus. Nor did she report such intercourses to elders.

This opens the possibility for further interpretations.

 

[Chrono13]

The superior arrogance of the dissenter is unable to understand much less assent to doctrine as in Casti Connubii.
The Father’s of the Church attested that the joyful unitive aspect of marriage flowed from marital intercourse when it is open to new life.

Sorry, this is simply not true. Church Fathers never recognized unitive aspect of marital sexuality. They accepted, and defended, the idea that marriage as social relationship is unitive, but sexuality in marriage was only for procreation by nature, or (sinful) controlling lust by permission.

Speaking the truth is never a mark of a dissenter.

forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=315
In another homily, St. John Chrysostom went on to say:
“The procreation of children in marriage is the ‘heritage’ and ‘reward’ of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into ‘one flesh’ (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.’” 19
Note
19. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 20, PG.

St Augustine:
"It is one thing not to lie [with one’s wife] except with the **sole **will of generating: this has no fault. It is another to seek the pleasure of the flesh in lying, although within the limits of marriage: this has venial fault. I am supposing that then, although you are not lying for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.”
24. St. Augustine, “Marriage and Concupiscence” 1.15.17

These quotes charish the marriage, but not the marital act. Chrysostom stresses that marriage is not only for procreation, but keeping of chasity. Augustine forbids evil prayers and deeds which obstruct procreation (it is sinful to pray, or hope, for intercourse not to end in begetting a child, not to mention measure temperature or track the fertility on calendar- these are deeds which do so).

 

[Warrior1979]

Hardly. If everyone was killed by God for every grave sin there would be hardly anyone left alive.

Then the issue of why God is meting out justice unevenly arises. Why?

 

[Muze]

1. We do not know what Er’s offense was.
2. But Onan, knowing that the line would not count as his, spilt his seed on the ground every time he slept with his brother’s wife, to avoid providing offspring for his brother

He approached his wife every time with the intent of being intimate, not finishing poperly and not fathering (not bearing — men do not bear children)

If, NFP were around back then Onan could not have practiced NFP without his wife’s cooperation. How would he know she were fertile, other than counting her days?

Women in those days were also virtually slaves. If Onan commanded her to count her days, she would count them.

His wife was interested in having a child so greatly that she tricked her own father in law. She prostituted herself to him, became pregnant and was not punished at all…

You’re dodging the question.

If Onan had used NFP to avoid impregnanting Tamar, using his authority as the husband to do so, would he have been put to death?

 

[Muze]

False, and frightfully misunderstood.

Onan’s sin
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN)on May-14-2006:
"There are some who argue that the severe punishment of God upon Onan was for his failure to fulfill the Levirate law of raising up offspring; however, the punishment for this was specified by God as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy:

25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, —‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, — ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 25:9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, — ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

“The penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation–a far cry from execution. This leads us to conclude that the death punishment upon Onan was not for his failure to raise up posterity for his deceased brother, but for the crime of wasting the seed upon the ground–a primitive and vulgar form of contraception. Incidentally, with regards to contraception, many people today are ignorant of the fact that many forms of contraception actually act as an abortifacient–they kill the newly conceived child in some manner.”

Perhaps this father needs to check his time line.

Onan lived more than 400 years before the Old Covenant was established, and more like 500 years before Deuteronomy occurred.

So, Onan wasn’t exactly bound to that Covenant.