No birth control? No fair!

[AiyanaS]

Yes that is true.

But one may not separate the unitive from the procreative.

**Compendium **issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice summary:

496. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

Yes, it can be separated. Not everyone can afford to breed like rabbits or play Russian Roulette with NFP, which is contraceptive anyway. Like I’ve said before what a couple does to plan out children and how they go about doing that, is between them and God. Would you get upset if a couple only had sex to procreate and found no enjoyment in the experience?

Also, Just like you say sex has a “two fold” meaning, my example about eating fits as well. Do people with G-tubes going against the natural plan for eating, because the pleasure of eating is separated and removed from the nutritional part?

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, it can be separated.

Yes people do.

And it is contrary to the nature of marriage.

Contrary to the love this is to be in marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

You play Russian Roulette with NFP, which is contraceptive anyway.

No it is NOT contraceptive!

And no it is not russian roulette- ha! Nope.

 

[Bookcat]

Like I’ve said before what a couple does to plan out children and how they go about doing that, is between them and God.

Yes and God is quite clear on this.

One may not use contraceptives period.

They must not separate the unitive and procreative. They must be open to life.

 

[Bookcat]

Would you get upset if a couple only had sex to procreate and found no enjoyment in the experience?

Me upset? No I am not here to be upset.

But* if you mean* that a couple simply use each other to have children…thus cutting off the unitive aspect.

Yes that too would be rather wrong.

Contrary too to the nature of marriage and what God intended …contrary to the love that is to be in marriage.

 

[AiyanaS]

Funny how you won’t answer this:

Just like you say sex has a “two fold” meaning, my example about eating can fit as well. Do people with G-tubes going against the natural plan for eating, because the pleasure of eating is separated and removed from the nutritional part?

 

[Rau]

Yes, it can be separated…

Well, we know they ***can ***be separated. The question is whether it is morally good to do so. We know what the Catholic church teaches, and the Catholic faith holds that it has authority to teach.

Is the position you espouse a personally arrived at belief, or is it sourced from a particular authority you follow? [Is there a moral authority you follow other than your understanding of the Scriptures, and your conscience?]

Like I’ve said before what a couple does to plan out children and how they go about doing that, is between them and God.

What does that statement mean? Does it mean that contraception might be immoral sometimes / for some people, but not other times / or for other people? [To be worked out by individuals in consultation with God.] If so, in what situation would contraception ever be wrong?

Or are you really saying simply that contraception is always morally good?

 

[Bookcat]

Well, we know they ***can ***be separated. The question is whether it is morally good to do so. We know what the Catholic church teaches, and the Catholic faith holds that it has authority to teach.

Bingo.

 

[Bookcat]

Funny how you won’t answer this:

Just like you say sex has a “two fold” meaning, my example about eating can fit as well. Do people with G-tubes going against the natural plan for eating, because the pleasure of eating is separated and removed from the nutritional part?

Has nothing to do with the subject.

One cannot confuse a moral issue about the sacredness of and meaning of Marriage with that sort of question.

The only commonality is the phrase “two fold”.

Like asking of flying is wrong cause it goes against the law of gravity.

No these are very different matters here.

 

[AiyanaS]

Well, we know they ***can ***be separated. The question is whether it is morally good to do so. We know what the Catholic church teaches, and the Catholic faith holds that it has authority to teach.

Is the position you espouse a personally arrived at belief, or is it sourced from a particular authority you follow? [Is there a moral authority you follow other than your understanding of the Scriptures, and your conscience?]

I understand scripture and there’s nothing in it that speaks against contraception. Onans sin was he disobeyed a “command” by God to get his dead brothers wife pregnant, not because he pulled out. It was the disobeying of an order that was his sin, not the act itself. I also follow my conscience and my conscience since I was a child was to just adopt and never procreate naturally because I refuse to condemn someone with my disease. I was aware of church teaching, I even convinced myself I was defected and not made for romantic love and concluded I would never marry because no Christian guy in there right mind would want to marry some genetic defect. That is until God told me otherwise.
I’ve prayed to God on this issue and consulted several religious individuals I trust on this issue, AFTER praying to God before talking with them that He have them answer me the way He would, and everyone of them said, it’s a personal choice. In fact I held off talking to a Catholic priest, at a place of significance for me (not explaining), for 4 years and finally caved one day, my gut told me it’s time to go. I was expecting him to lecture me like everyone here does but he didn’t, and neither did the minister and pastor I talked to on later dates, separate occasions. All said same thing. Family planning is a personal choice for the couple and whatever there method is, is between them and God. Minus abortion obviously.

What does that statement mean? Does it mean that contraception might be immoral sometimes / for some people, but not other times / or for other people? [To be worked out by individuals in consultation with God.] If so, in what situation would contraception ever be wrong?

Or are you really saying simply that contraception is always morally good?

That statement means, It’s a personal choice. There’s nothing immoral about contraception when used consentually in a marriage. It’s immoral when used for premarital sex.

 

[davidv]

I understand scripture and there’s nothing in it that speaks against contraception. Onans sin was he disobeyed a “command” by God to get his dead brothers wife pregnant, not because he pulled out. It was the disobeying of an order that was his sin, not the act itself. I also follow my conscience and my conscience since I was a child was to just adopt and never procreate naturally because I refuse to condemn someone with my disease. I was aware of church teaching, I even convinced myself I was defected and not made for romantic love and concluded I would never marry because no Christian guy in there right mind would want to marry some genetic defect. That is until God told me otherwise.
I’ve prayed to God on this issue and consulted several religious individuals I trust on this issue, AFTER praying to God before talking with them that He have them answer me the way He would, and everyone of them said, it’s a personal choice. In fact I held off talking to a Catholic priest, at a place of significance for me (not explaining), for 4 years and finally caved one day, my gut told me it’s time to go. I was expecting him to lecture me like everyone here does but he didn’t, and neither did the minister and pastor I talked to on later dates, separate occasions. All said same thing. Family planning is a personal choice for the couple and whatever there method is, is between them and God. Minus abortion obviously.

That statement means, It’s a personal choice. There’s nothing immoral about contraception when used consentually in a marriage. It’s immoral when used for premarital sex.

What moral system uses consent as the benchmark of what is moral?

 

[Rau]

I understand scripture and there’s nothing in it that speaks against contraception. Onans sin was he disobeyed a “command” by God to get his dead brothers wife pregnant, not because he pulled out. It was the disobeying of an order that was his sin, not the act itself.

Hmm, that interpretation is the one used by everyone who is OK with contraception. Biblical scholars point out that Onan’s sin was not what he failed to do - but, as Scripture said “what he did”. There was a biblical punishment for refusal to marry the widow / seek to provide her with children. It was public humiliation - not death.

I also follow my conscience and my conscience since I was a child was to just adopt and never procreate naturally because I refuse to condemn someone with my disease.

I was aware of church teaching, I even convinced myself I was defected and not made for romantic love and concluded I would never marry because no Christian guy in there right mind would want to marry some genetic defect.

I know nothing of your condition.

I’ve prayed to God on this issue and consulted several religious individuals I trust on this issue, AFTER praying to God before talking with them that He have them answer me the way He would, and everyone of them said, it’s a personal choice. In fact I held off talking to a Catholic priest, at a place of significance for me (not explaining), for 4 years and finally caved one day, my gut told me it’s time to go. I was expecting him to lecture me like everyone here does but he didn’t, and neither did the minister and pastor I talked to on later dates, separate occasions. All said same thing. Family planning is a personal choice for the couple and whatever there method is, is between them and God. Minus abortion obviously.

You would be aware that no Catholic Priest has any authority to tell you that contraception is fine “in your case”. How do you weigh the words of a Catholic priest (who you say…) acts contrary to his Church’s teaching against the Bishops and all priests who properly proclaim what is taught? Sounds a bit like doctor shopping.

That statement means, It’s a personal choice. There’s nothing immoral about contraception when used consentually in a marriage. It’s immoral when used for premarital sex.

If there is nothing immoral about contraception (in marriage), then consulting with God appears to be moot. No discernment would be required. What you’re saying is that it is perfectly fine - no need to consult God. It’s interesting that it’s wrong to use NFP in an illicit relationship, but not in marriage. I wonder how you arrived at that.

 

[Muzhik]

I understand scripture and there’s nothing in it that speaks against contraception. Onan’s sin was he disobeyed a “command” by God to get his dead brothers wife pregnant, not because he pulled out.

I’m sorry. That’s like saying you didn’t start the fire, it was the lit match that dropped onto the woodpile that started it. Onan pulled out in order to prevent his brother’s widow from conceiving. (And as an aside, I don’t know what was with Jesse, but his first three sons were real pieces of work – all three of them killed by G_D.)

Understand the purpose of a Levirate marriage: it kept property within a clan. The widow would conceive by her brother-in-law, and the son would be listed in the genealogies as coming from the late husband. If Onan had refused to partake in this Levirate marriage, Tamar would have been required to marry someone from a different clan or tribe. If that happened, then all of the dead brother’s property – goats, sheep, camels, slaves – would have gone with Tamar to her new family, and the clan would have lost all of those resources. So Onan engaged in a Levirate marriage to keep the property in the clan.

So why did he pull out (i.e., contracept)? Because if Tamar did not produce a male heir to carry on the late husband’s name, then all the aforementioned property would become HIS property.

Now look at it from G_D’s point of view. If you read the genealogies of Jesus, Tamar is listed there, coming from the line of Jesse. For some reason known only to Him, it was essential that King David come from Jesse’s line, the “root of Jesse’s tree”, AND that Tamar be the mother. Onan, in pulling out (practicing contraception), was actively and continually frustrating the plans of G_D, to the extent that G_D killed him. That’s something we need to keep in mind: every child born (and that includes both you and me) are VITAL to the execution of G_D’s plan for humanity, for salvation history. Every act of contraception, either through Pill or condom, is an act directly interfering with the plans of G_D.

 

[Rau]

…I also follow my conscience and my conscience since I was a child was to just adopt and never procreate naturally because I refuse to condemn someone with my disease. I was aware of church teaching, I even convinced myself I was defected and not made for romantic love and concluded I would never marry because no Christian guy in there right mind would want to marry some genetic defect. That is until God told me otherwise.

Certainly that resolution, adopted in the course of marriage, can be quite proper. One can have a just reason to avoid pregnancy for an indefinite period. Adoption of contraception - as the means to that end - is a separate matter. That means is taught as immoral.

And whether one may validly marry with a pre-established position to avoid children (regardless of means) is a separate question again.

 

[AiyanaS]

Certainly that resolution, adopted in the course of marriage, can be quite proper. One can have a just reason to avoid pregnancy for an indefinite period. Adoption of contraception - as the means to that end - is a separate matter. That means is taught as immoral.

And whether one may validly marry with a pre-established position to avoid children (regardless of means) is a separate question again.

There is no “valid”/“invalid” marriages. If couple gets married and they vow to spend the rest of there lives together, willingly, they are validly married, they don’t need an organized religion telling them they need to meet a checklist of what they, the organization, consider must be met in order to have a “valid” marriage.

Also, adopting and giving homes to children in need instead of bringing more people into the world, especially ones with genetic diseases like mine, is a more selfless alternative. The world needs more people to help those in need not propagate diseases. If I didn’t have defected genes I would happily have kids biologically but since I’m not, that is a problem I want to avoid. But go ahead and everyone here berate me and basically tell me since I don’t fit Catholic, “marriage criteria” I can’t marry. Avoiding biological kids (who might inherit my disease and suffer more than the average person) in favor of adoption is NOT the end of the world.

 

[Rau]

There is no “valid”/“invalid” marriages. If couple gets married and they vow to spend the rest of there lives together, willingly, they are validly married, they don’t need an organized religion telling them they need to meet a checklist of what they, the organization, consider must be met in order to have a “valid” marriage.

Clearly your first statement is wrong - marriages may be invalid for all sorts of reasons (e.g. One person already married, one person too young, etc). You may question which reasons are a basis of invalidity, but invalidity for some reasons is universally accepted. If you introduce or comment on issues like marriage, expect Catholic responses. Your positions appear to be purely personal.

Also, adopting and giving homes to children in need instead of bringing more people into the world, especially ones with genetic diseases like mine, is a more selfless alternative. The world needs more people to help those in need not propagate diseases. If I didn’t have defected genes I would happily have kids biologically but since I’m not, that is a problem I want to avoid.

Fair enough. Only the means (e.g. Contraception) are in question, not the objective.

But go ahead and everyone here berate me and basically tell me since I don’t fit Catholic, “marriage criteria” I can’t marry. Avoiding biological kids (who might inherit my disease and suffer more than the average person) in favor of adoption is NOT the end of the world.

I hadn’t noticed anyone berate you. Adoption is a wonderful thing. Countless babies are aborted. And countless childless couples seek babies to adopt. What a shame.

 

[AiyanaS]

Now look at it from G_D’s point of view. If you read the genealogies of Jesus, Tamar is listed there, coming from the line of Jesse. For some reason known only to Him, it was essential that King David come from Jesse’s line, the “root of Jesse’s tree”, AND that Tamar be the mother. Onan, in pulling out (practicing contraception), was actively and continually frustrating the plans of G_D, to the extent that G_D killed him. That’s something we need to keep in mind: every child born (and that includes both you and me) are VITAL to the execution of G_D’s plan for humanity, for salvation history. Every act of contraception, either through Pill or condom, is an act directly interfering with the plans of G_D.

If God wants someone to exist, no amount of contraception is going to stop that, not a condom and birth control used together (a friend of mine can vogue for this), not a vasectomy or tubal ligation or even a bilateral salopingectomy. In fact, sometimes even an abortion doesn’t stop God, that’s why there are saline baby survivors. If a person is miscarried, for whatever reason, God obviously never intended for that person to be born.

And not every human is vital and needed, in fact there a people who are more of a net loss for human society than a gain. For instance, the world could’ve done much better without the existence of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, the Kim Jong’s of North Korea, Fidel Castro, any serial killer.

Anyway, God slew Onan because Onan contemptuously refused to fulfill his familial responsibility under the Old Covenant, levirate marriage, which was used to preserve tribal inheritance rights.

God’s anger against Onan had everything to do with Onan’s failure to fulfill his covenantal obligation, and nothing to do with his method of birth control. Scripture does not directly contemplate the use of birth control, and thus it is a matter of personal preference within what God has revealed as proper Christian living.

 

[e_c]

**1. **If God wants someone to exist, no amount of contraception is going to stop that, not a condom and birth control used together (a friend of mine can vogue for this), not a vasectomy or tubal ligation or even a bilateral salopingectomy. In fact, sometimes even an abortion doesn’t stop God, that’s why there are saline baby survivors. If a person is miscarried, for whatever reason, God obviously never intended for that person to be born.

**2. **And not every human is vital and needed, in fact there a people who are more of a net loss for human society than a gain. For instance, the world could’ve done much better without the existence of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, the Kim Jong’s of North Korea, Fidel Castro, any serial killer.

**3. **Anyway, God slew Onan because Onan contemptuously refused to fulfill his familial responsibility under the Old Covenant, levirate marriage, which was used to preserve tribal inheritance rights.

**4. **God’s anger against Onan had everything to do with Onan’s failure to fulfill his covenantal obligation, and nothing to do with his method of birth control. Scripture does not directly contemplate the use of birth control, and thus it is a matter of personal preference within what God has revealed as proper Christian living.

1. If I go on a shooting spree, God will keep alive those he wants alive, right? We can just presume on God getting what He wants, so in turn we can do whatever we want. Right?
2. Mmm. Some people are unnecessary and some are inherently better than others. Sounds just like Christianity.
3. Even though there is no such command at that point in Scripture, and the punishment for failing to raise up a family for one’s brother is mere public humiliation rather than death? And even though it couldn’t have been a matter of natural precept, because we do not still have this obligation today? And even though it couldn’t have been disrespecting his father’s wishes (or another human being’s wishes), since sexual rights don’t extend beyond the parties in the marriage itself? It seems rather that Onan was greedy for worldly goods, and wanted the pleasures of sex without losing those goods, as Muzhik pointed out… which is pretty much exactly what contraception is still motivated by today.
4. Scripture also doesn’t say anything about a father marrying his daughter. So is that up to an individual too?

Saying that God revealed something to you is fine until it contradicts what He reveals publicly through His Church which was made for that exact purpose.

 

[Muzhik]

1. Anyway, God slew Onan because Onan contemptuously refused to fulfill his familial responsibility under the Old Covenant, levirate marriage, which was used to preserve tribal inheritance rights.
2. God’s anger against Onan had everything to do with Onan’s failure to fulfill his covenantal obligation, and nothing to do with his method of birth control. Scripture does not directly contemplate the use of birth control, and thus it is a matter of personal preference within what God has revealed as proper Christian living.

1. & 4. Onan’s death wasn’t because he “…contemptuously refused to fulfill his familial responsibility under the Old Covenant…” He could have refused the marriage; or if he had gone ahead with the marriage he could have refused to have sex with her. In the second instance, Tamar could then have brought Onan before the elders because he was violating her marriage rights. In both instances, Onan would have lost the property that Tamar had inherited.

Instead, he chose to fulfill the requirements of the Law (by marrying Tamar), a law laid down by G_D and recorded in the Book of Leviticus. After doing so, he chose to reject this law laid down by G_D by practicing contraception so as to prevent the birth of a male heir. G_D’s anger wasn’t that Onan refused an obligation, it’s that he lied about accepting the obligation in marrying Tamar then acting in ways to prevent the fulfillment of that obligation.

We know from extra-Scriptural sources that withdrawal was the only effective contraception method available at the time to a majority of the people, and was most often used when having sex with slaves if you didn’t want to have a child with the slave (i.e., if you were breeding for saleable merchandise, you wouldn’t want to be selling your own children).

Since Onan’s actions were geared toward strictly material purposes (having sex and keeping the property) without accepting responsibility (creating a child with Tamar, one that would be listed and treated as his brother’s, not his), it’s clear this pretty much matches the reasons people today use contraception.

And @e_c, yes, Scripture DOES say something about a father marrying his daughter. It comes in the sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus dealing with incest. In it, the law also states (simplified) that incest is when you have sex with someone your mother, father, son, or daughter has had sex with. So when Tamar tricked Jesse into having sex with her to produce a male heir, she brought a curse down on her line, so that this line of Jesse would not prosper for 10 generations. In reading Scripture, we find that this is true – for 10 generations, this line had nothing going for it. Then, in the 11th generation, David was born.

 

[e_c]

And @e_c, yes, Scripture DOES say something about a father marrying his daughter. It comes in the sections of Deuteronomy and Leviticus dealing with incest. In it, the law also states (simplified) that incest is when you have sex with someone your mother, father, son, or daughter has had sex with.

I’d like to see the verse defining the sin by association rather than relation?

Otherwise, it seems it does on the face (“next of kin”), but it is not able to be deduced from the text itself that a father and daughter are forbidden (Lev. 18:6, just talking about the men!). It’s been a puzzle for a long time and shows up in the Talmud, which says it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be mentioned.