Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

It’s cute that you believe this even after reading and supposedly “understanding” the context. By the way, I never said they were struck dead ONLY to protect that line,

That is precisely the tenet of your argument which you have done through several posts.

If I have misunderstood that, then why were they struck dead if not for that according to you?

just that the evidence for the contraception argument is not there at all as far as a reason to kill Onan goes.

Actually it is there. The Bible is very clear. He was struck dead for the THING that He did. Not the thing that he did not do.

That is why the Church and the Jews have always interpreted it this way.
As I have said before, to illustrate the gravity of what he did the term “ruin” or "destroy’ was used for the spilling of the seed.

That this is situated right at the beginning, in Genesis - even before the giving of the Decalogue - gives us an idea that through this, God is giving us an idea of how sacred life is.

Using the old God said “Go forth and multiply” argument is the lamest argument EVER against contraception. When God said that, there were TWO people. TWO.

Yes, ain’t that amazing that God created us from nothing. Strange isn’t it that God took Ezekiel to the valley of bones and told him to prophesy to them and then "tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them…and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

You can keep asking, but I don’t think God is going to answer you…but from what I can tell? People have free will do they not? Judah wanted nothing to do with Tamar (Remember how he tries to have her burned to death? That means he doesn’t like her.). Deception was her only choice.

I don’t question God. I only question you. That you equate questioning you with questioning God smacks of arrogance.

And yes, I am done arguing with you…I just thought this particular line of questioning warranted a response.

We shall see.

 

[benedictus2]

Well I donlt think the Church actually uses that incorrect information now to justify its teaching on this. What I can;t figure out is what it bases it teaching on! I mean I have read the arguments for the Onan story being about contraception and how it is wrong. But to be honest I just donlt see it. I mean if was used to say that withdrawing is wrong I could see that. But to apply it to all forms of artifical contraception? Well it just seems like one needs to take a large leap of logic to come to that conclusion. But eh I think I am safe from this “sin” assuming it is a sin since I have yet to see any strong evidence since I am not even using any sort of contraception well other then abstinence.

from this link : catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

**The Church’s teaching on contraception reveals hidden mysteries
By Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap.
Issue: January 2010 **
It has been 41 years since Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae vitae (on human life). I remember that a number of Catholics at that time rejected Paul VI’s teaching that contraception was evil. People asked the question: “How can these old celibate priests tell us married folk how to live our lives?” They said that celibate priests were just trying to make marriage miserable for the laity because priests could not get married themselves. They said that nowhere in Sacred Scripture was contraception condemned except in some Old Testament story about a guy named Onan. And this is as outdated as the dietary and health codes of the Old Testament which are no longer followed by the Catholic Church. Finally, Catholic people reported that their local priest said that if their consciences said that they could use contraceptives, then they must follow their conscience.

         The  aim of this article is to show: (1) that God clearly condemns  contraception in Sacred Scripture; (2) that Catholics must conform their  conscience (mind and will) to the Church’s teaching that contraception  is *intrinsically evil*; (3) that there is a positive side of the Church’s teaching on contraception, which is quite important for married couples.

The revelation about Onan is for all time

         The author of *Genesis*  reports that God punished Onan because he “wasted his seed on the  ground” when he had sexual relations with his wife who was the widow of  his brother (*Genesis* 38:8). Some Catholics do not believe that  this Old Testament story means that God condemns all acts of  contraception. The point of the story, they argue, is that God was  displeased with Onan rather because he did not fulfill his duty to his  deceased brother than because of the method he chose to get around it,  i.e., spilling his seed on the ground. This very objection is found in  the editorial footnote to *Genesis* 38:8 in the 1986 edition of the *New American Bible*. Let us examine the story of Onan closely.

         First we must clearly identify the persons  in  the story of Onan . There is the Father, Judah. Then there are his two  sons: the first is Er and the second is Onan. Finally there is Er’s wife  who marries Onan after Er dies. So Onan marries his deceased brother’s  widow to bring up children in the name of his brother Er as the Levite  marriage laws require.

          The  text begins by pointing out that Judah arranged a wife for Er his first  born son. “But Er, Judah’s first-born, greatly offended the Lord; so  the Lord took his life.”  The Scriptures do not explicitly  say what Er did to bring down God’s wrath so greatly that God killed  him. But I have my suspicion which will be expressed later.  Let  us continue the story. Then Judah told Onan to unite with his brother’s  widow to fulfill his duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve his  brother’s line. “Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be  counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow,  he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for  his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took  his life too” (*Genesis* 38:9).

The footnote to Genesis 38:8 in the 1986 edition of the *New American Bible *reads:
*The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or ‘brother-in-law’ marriage; see notes on Deut. 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure.

• But how does the author of the footnote know this?
  

         The  writer of the footnote was saying that God was more disturbed by Onan’s  refusal to carry out the Levirate law than because he “wasted his seed  on the ground” in an unnatural act of contraception. But when one  reviews the references that the author of the footnote gives, *Deut.* 25:5 and *Ruth*  2:20, to demonstrate the “importance” of the law of Levirate, one does  not find God killing anyone for not fulfilling the Levirate law. In *Deut*.  25:5 the man who refuses to fulfill the Levirate law is disgraced since  the law allows his widowed brother’s wife to spit in his face.  (25:7-10). And in *Ruth* 2:20 the near relative who did not take up  his duty to marry his relative’s widow (Ruth) merely agreed to give up  his claim to Ruth and all of the property. He was not killed for this  action (*Ruth* 4:1-13). So, God killed Onan for something greater than just refusing to fulfill the Levirate law.

(continued)

 

[benedictus2]

continuation of post 931 from this link catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

The more likely reason for God’s wrath is the means that Onan used to get around fulfilling the Levirate law. Pope Pius XI taught about the “conjugal act” that those who *“deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.” Continuing the Pope stated: *

• . . .Sacred Scripture itself testifies that the divine Majesty looks upon this nefarious crime with the greatest hatred, and sometimes has punished it with death, as St. Augustine relates: “It is illicit and disgraceful for one to lie even with his legitimate wife, when conception of offspring is prevented. Onan did this; God killed him therefore.”

When the 17th century exegete and theologian, Giovanni Stefano Menochio discussed this same chapter in Genesis, he suggested that the wicked thing or great offence that Judah’s first born Er did to merit death was also contraception or perhaps masturbation. A footnote to Genesis 38:7 taken from Menochio states about the “wicked” thing that Er did: “Wicked; without shame or remorse, sinning against nature, in order, if we may believe the Jews, that the beauty of his wife might not be impaired by having children.”[ii]

         The  story of Onan is not just meant for Old Testament times. It was meant  to convey a message to all of humanity. The message is that we are not  the sole or even primary begetters and owners of our children. All  children primarily belong to God. Contraception is intrinsically evil  because it is an attempt to determine the existence or non-existence of a  child regardless of God’s will. So, the Catholic understanding of the  sin of Onan is that God punished Onan primarily for the unnatural act of  wasting his seed on the ground. It appears then that the footnote to *Genesis* 38: 7-10 in the 1986 edition of the *New American Bible *departs  from the Catholic Church’s traditional interpretation of and the  wickedness of the act of Onanism or what the Church now calls  contraception.

Contraception is intrinsically evil

         Since  many people condemn what they do not really know, it is good to give  here the exact teaching of the Church on the evil of contraception or  Onanism. 

         According to no. 80 of John Paul II’s encyclical, “*Veritatis splendor*,” (The Splendour of truth) the Church has always taught that there are acts which are evil *“always and *per se*”*  and are called “intrinsically evil” acts. John Paul II says about these  acts that they, “independently of circumstances, are always seriously  wrong by reason of their object.”  Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical, *Humanae vitae* taught “that each and every marriage act (*quilibet matrimonii usus*) must remain open to the transmission of life” (*H.V*., no. 11).  According to no. 2370 of the *Catechism of the Catholic* *Church* Paul VI is hereby teaching that contraception is “intrinsically evil.” 

         Paul VI states quite clearly in no. 14 of *Humanae vitae* that contraception is absolutely evil and must never be done for any reason whatsoever: *“…we  must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative  process already begun, and above all, directly willed and procured  abortion, even for therapeutic reasons is to be absolutely excluded as  licit means of regulating birth.*”  Since the act of  contraception has evolved into many forms since the original form of  “wasting the seed on the ground,” the Pope also mentions modern forms of  contraception.  Paul VI continues: *“Equally to be  excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently  declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary,  whether of the man or of the woman*.”  Finally, the Pope adds:  “*Similarly  excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal  act or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural  consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render  procreation impossible.*”

         Some  Catholics objected to the Pope’s teaching that contraception was  “intrinsically” evil and could not be done at any time for any reason.  They claimed that there were valid exceptions to this teaching based on  sound reasoning. A couple may have to use contraceptives so that they  can preserve the health of the mother whether physical or psychological,  facilitate the happiness of the family beset by many medical bills  which they could not pay, have enough funds for the future education of  their children, etc.

 

[benedictus2]

continuation of post 932 from this link catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

But these claims must be rejected because of a more fundamental principle of moral law that the****end does not justify the means or that one cannot do evil so that good may come from it.This teaching was cited by the Apostle Paul and is clearly taught by Pope Paul VI. Paul says that some people accused him of teaching the principle that one can do evil so that good may come from it, but he rejects this principle. He says in Rm. 3:8: “And why not say — as we are accused and as some claim we say — that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.” Similarly, Pope Paul VI teaches: “*In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow from there *(H.v., no. 14)” So, a couple cannot use contraceptives for a so-called greater personal good, like the health of the mother, or a so-called greater social good, like having enough money to educate their children.
Following one’s conscience

         But don’t we have to follow our conscience on this matter of contraception?  The answer to this is yes but one must understand what this means and what it does not mean.  After Paul VI published *Humanae vitae*  in 1968, many Catholics sought counseling from their parish priest.  They asked him the question: what does the Church teach about  contraception? Or, can I and my married partner use contraceptives? Many  priests responded by saying that Catholics had to follow their  conscience on this matter of contraception. While this is true advice in  regard to contraception, it is also true advice in regard to any moral  situation, even murder. The difficulty is that the priest’s response  became understood by people as meaning that if you disagreed with the  Church’s judgment about contraception, you could follow your own  judgment and use contraceptives. This, however, is **not** what the Church teaches.

         Following the publication of *Humanae vitae*, Dr. Germain Grisez talks about this misunderstanding of contraception and conscience. He says:

Normally, conscience becomes a subject of reflection when one is thinking about one’s past action or someone else’s action. In forming one’s conscience here and now, one pays attention to the relevant moral truth, not to conscience. It follows that when someone seeks pastoral guidance, he or she wants to know what the Church believes is truly the right thing to do. If one responds by saying that a person who follows a sincere conscience is morally blameless, the remark can be misleading.

According to Dr. Grisez, the question is: what does the Church teach that I should do? The question is not: if I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception and follow my own judgment which later turns out to be incorrect, will I still be blameless? [iii]

         So,  what should the priests have said then and what should priests say now?  The answer is quite clear. The Second Vatican Council stated the answer  to this question quite clearly in no. 25 of their *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church*.  First,  the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council stated that “Bishops,  teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all  as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.” Continuing, they say that  “In matters of **faith and morals**, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a **religious assent**.” Next, the Fathers apply this teaching to the Pope or the Roman Pontiff. They proclaim that

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

And how can this “manifest mind and will” of the Pope be known? The Fathers respond by saying that “His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
Obviously, the Church’s teaching on contraception is at least an ordinary teaching of the Pope on a “matter of faith and morals.” Every Catholic, therefore, must “accept” this teaching of the Pope “even when he is not speaking *ex cathedra*” and “adhere to it with a religious assent,” which is a “religious submission of mind and will.” This means that the faithful must “sincerely adhere to this teaching of Paul VI on contraception “according to his manifest mind and will.” And his manifest mind and will may be known from the document, *Humanae vitae,* itself and from the Church’s frequent teaching on contraception in the past, e.g. Pius XI’s, teaching, *Casti Connubii*,” (*of chaste wedlock*) published on Dec. 31, 1930. In other words, the priests should have told the people following Paul VI’s publication of *Humanae vitae *in 1968 that they could not use contraceptives under any circumstances.

 

[benedictus2]

continuation of post 933 from this link catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

***The positive side of the Church’s teaching ***

         I studied theology from 1968 to 1972. Paul VI issued *Humanae vitae*  in 1968. During that time I had to give a talk on Paul VI’s teaching on  contraception to a group of 125 young married and single women.  I  was a deacon and I was quite nervous. As I gave my lecture to the women  spelling out that contraception was intrinsically evil and that they  could in no way use contraceptives in their married life and be good  Catholics, I could see many women wrinkling their faces and folding  their arms in a defiant posture.  At the end of the  lecture, I asked, “Are there any questions?” And boy, were there ever! I  thought that they were going to stone me. But then something  interesting happened. A woman asked a question which revealed a very  grave problem with contraception. She stated that when her husband  wanted sex he had to have it. Perhaps she was proclaiming her  voluptuousness. She could not tell him to wait until next week for sex;  she was not going to do that. So she had to use contraceptives.  I was wondering how to respond to her question when another woman stood up and questioned her.  She  asked, “If your husband has to have sex whenever he wants it, what  would he do if you have to go to hospital for a while or he has to go on  trips for his work?”  This question forms the basis of this next part; listen very carefully.

         Paul  VI warned that if people practised contraception in marriage, a “wide  and easy road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and  the general lowering of morality” (*H.v*., no. 17). Society has  moved in the past decades from accepting contraception to also accepting  divorce, remarriage, and premarital sex.  Society is now in the process of accepting homosexual life styles and homosexual marriages. Paul VI indeed was a prophet. 

         So what did Paul VI know from God that the rest of the world did not know?  Paul  VI knew about the mystery of the relationship between a man and a woman  and the mystery of evil. Let us take a clear look at these mysteries.

         Many  a husband and wife have wondered why the good God made women with a  menstrual cycle. Certainly, it was for regulating birth. But it was also  so that the man and the woman could come to know each other and learn  self-control in married life.  If a couple wants to have a  baby, or to temporarily avoid having a baby for a serious reason, that  couple will have to pay close attention to the woman’s body and her  menstrual cycle. The man and the woman will not simply be able to come  together and have sex. Indeed, he will have to get to know his wife. He  will have to know, how she feels, when she is in a mood, what makes her  happy and what makes her sad, whether she is fertile or not, and when  she wants to have sexual relations. He will have to get romantically  involved with his wife reminiscent of his courtship of her before they  married. In doing this the husband will find out many things about his  wife. This knowledge will confirm the many good things he knew about her  and reveal even more wonderful things about her which he never knew  before. The woman will also get to know her husband at a much deeper  level. God created the menstrual cycle so that the man and the woman  would get to *know each other intimately*.

         And  when the couple comes to know each other as God intended, the man will  know the best time for him to refrain from sexual relations if they  choose to avoid a child for a serious reason. This waiting to have  sexual relations will have a good by-product. It will strengthen the  self-control of each partner, especially the husband. So another  important reason why God placed cycles in the woman’s reproductive life  is to teach the couple to have the *self-control* which is so crucial for their eternal salvation.

         One of the most important elements in married life is *trust *between  husband and wife. I am referring here to trust that one’s partner will  not betray the marriage bond by having an affair with another person.  When a couple trusts that their partner will not have an affair, then  the partners can put their mind on other things. They can focus on the  wonderful things about one another and their children. Then the marriage  and family will blossom.

         But this trust between husband and wife about conjugal fidelity must be based on **reality**.  It is based on the fact that the partners know each other intimately.  They know that each of them can control their sexual desires in relation  to the other.  How does each know this about his or her  partner? Because the partners see each other controlling their sexual  desires in relation to their own sexual needs. For example, the wife  knows that her husband can resist her own beauty and control his sexual  desires when it is necessary. Thus, if the wife is in hospital or away  from her husband for a long period of time for some legitimate reason,  she is at peace for she knows her husband does not have to have sex just  when he wants it. She knows that he can control himself and that he  will not be seeking the neighbour woman for sexual favours.

 

[benedictus2]

continuation of post 934 from this site catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_957.shtml

However, loss of knowledge of the spouse and loss of self-control through the use of contraception also brings with it a loss of peace. In fact, when knowledge of the person of the spouse and self-control does not grow or ceases, suspicion and distrust enters the marriage. When husband and wife must be separated for any length of time for legitimate reasons, like work or hospital, one partner will worry what the other partner is doing. Each partner knows that the other is not used to abstaining from sex for any length of time and has become dependent on contraceptives. Consequently, each partner cannot help suspecting that the other is now turning to someone else to satisfy his or her sexual instincts? This suspicion destroys trust between husband and wife and, most likely, also the marriage.
Obviously, the menstrual cycle and the divine and natural law to abstain from sexual relations is a mysterious gift from God as a protection of the unity between husband and wife in marriage and the family. Too bad the world does not understand this. Did you ever thank God that you are a Roman Catholic?

 

[benedictus2]

This is from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, chapter 7
Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

“7 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the Law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.”

benedictus2:

I still need to verify what this prohibition in tribal intermarriage entails.

Okay, I have done a quick research into the matter of inter-tribal marriage in Mosaic Law and this is so far what I have found.

It appears that there is no general prohibition on inter-tribal marriage.

David who is from the tribe Judah married Michal who is the daughter of Saul who was of the tribe of Benajamin.

Aaron of the tribe of Levi married Elisheva from the tribe of Judah.

Boaz married Ruth who was an outsider.

So therefore, to establish Mary’s coming from the line of David based on the prohibition of inter-tribal marriage is incorrect.

 

[sidbrown]

Okay, cut that part out of the list.

Shall we now have a vote on murder, adultery, cheating and lying?

All in favour say aye.

How is murder comparable to artificial birth control?
And please note that many Catholics are now coming out in favor of artificial birth control. For example, there is the program “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. According to what he said tonight, he strongly favors federal funding of Planned Parenthood since it gives women the information they need to use contraceptive methods. Mr. Matthews has been invited as an honored speaker at Catholic colleges, such as for example, Holy Cross college in Massachusetts. According to the American Enterprise Institute, 78% of Catholics say they believe that the Church should allow Catholics to use birth control.
And get this, 96% of Catholic women have used birth control.
How does that compare with the percentag4e of Catholic women who have committed muirder or who believe that the Church should allow them to murder their husbands?
So your comparison between artificial birth control and murder is truly ridiculous.

 

[benedictus2]

How is murder comparable to artificial birth control?

How about the fact that they both end in “No Life” and both “No Life” was a result of willful and pre-meditated human intervention

And please note that many Catholics are now coming out in favor of artificial birth control.

And what has that got to do with anything?

You obviously missed the point of my post. If you are arguing that, because Catholics are doing something therefore it must be allowed, we’ll, as I said before let us legislate approval of murder, adultery, homosexual acts, abortion, lying and cheating as all quite moral ways of living.

I was showing you the flaw in your reasoning.

Just because some Catholics disagree with some teachings of the Church does not make the teaching wrong nor does it mean that they should be abolished.

We are not a democracy. We have such a thing as a Magisterium and we bow to that.

 

[sidbrown]

How about the fact that they both end in “No Life” and both “No Life” was a result of willful and pre-meditated human intervention

And what has that got to do with anything?

You obviously missed the point of my post. If you are arguing that, because Catholics are doing something therefore it must be allowed, we’ll, as I said before let us legislate approval of murder, adultery, homosexual acts, abortion, lying and cheating as all quite moral ways of living.

I was showing you the flaw in your reasoning.

Just because some Catholics disagree with some teachings of the Church does not make the teaching wrong nor does it mean that they should be abolished.

We are not a democracy. We have such a thing as a Magisterium and we bow to that.

96% of Catholic women in the USA have used artificial birth control.
Are you saying that since murder and birth control both end in no life that they are comparable and that Catholic women who use birth control are comparable to those who commit murder?

 

[benedictus2]

96% of Catholic women in the USA have used artificial birth control.

Again, what has that got to do with whether ABC is right or wrong?

Would 95% of Catholics committing murder and adultery suddenly make it permissible just because a great majority is doing it?

If 99% were suddenly to be come atheists and Muslims and whatever other religion there is, would that suddenly invalidate the claims of Christ and Christianity?

Are you saying that since murder and birth control both end in no life that they are comparable and that Catholic women who use birth control are comparable to those who commit murder?

What I am saying is you have an extremely flawed logic.

I am not comparing birth control to murder (although one can establish a connection), what I am saying is, just because some people do some things that are not permitted by the Church, does not make what they are doing moral and does not give them the right to demand that it no longer be deemed immoral.

Morality is not relative.

 

[benedictus2]

For example, there is the program “Hardball” with Chris Matthews. According to what he said tonight, he strongly favors federal funding of Planned Parenthood since it gives women the information they need to use contraceptive methods. Mr. Matthews has been invited as an honored speaker at Catholic colleges, such as for example, Holy Cross college in Massachusetts. According to the American Enterprise Institute, 78% of Catholics say they believe that the Church should allow Catholics to use birth control.

Second comment on this one.

Not all Catholic Colleges who claim to be “Catholic” are so.

There are many Catholic colleges who are anything BUT Catholic and Notre Dame is one example.

Another thing: Chris Matthews is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. He is just one more secular propagandist who goes around in the guise of “Catholic” - something like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

=====================================================
Additional edit:

Just googled Christ Matthews and boy, what an obnoxious man. And we are supposed to take his word on contraception .

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I will just say that I believe that anyone who gives an honest reading to the entire story of Judah and Tamar must necessarily conclude that God’s plan was for Judah and Tamar to bear children (twins, in fact), and to create the tribe of Judah together. God was literally involved in every aspect of this family’s lives.

If we conclude that, we simply MUST conclude that attributing the death of Onan to his use of “contraception” alone is overly-simplistic and very, very flawed because it does not take into context at ALL the reasons why Onan’s behavior was so offensive to God, as if *anyone *practicing coitus interruptus is committing an equally heinous offense.

A knowledgeable reading of the text simply does not support this interpretation and misses the entire point of the narrative, which is an ongoing description of God’s personal involvement in the lives of His chosen people in order to provide them with a savior who was prophesied to hail from the line of Judah.

 

[jovnyc]

Exactly, so hardly a case of deceiving God.

Then why did Peter say that it was? Confused. He explicitly says that they were lying to God. Please read the verse.

You probably would but hardly a case of sexual assault and rape.

It has nothing to do with technology.

That scenario does not even come close.

Tamar was not sedated. She went willingly. The only thing reprehesible was the Judah knew from the start that he intended not to give her a child.

Yes, she did but it still is not rape because she consented.

As I said, that would be like a prostitute agreeing to sex for money (in Tamar’s case it was a baby) and then the guy not paying.

I realize that Tamar wasn’t sedated. I only added that in so that Thoroughly Modern Millie, in my example, was in the same position as Tamar–totally clueless to what was going on and how she was being used.

I also disagree that Tamar + baby=Prostitute + money. There are many innocent ways to get money but only one way (at the time and throughout most of history) to conceive a child. A prostitute has chosen to sleep with random men in order to make money. It’s her way of life.

However, Tamar has not chosen that. She has agreed to bear an heir and that’s it. The only way to do that is to have sex. It’s undignified and a huge invasion of privacy to do it this way but it’s the only way. So Onan is not only refusing to do his duty as agreed upon, he is taking complete advantage of her with these multiple sexual encounters. Besides, if a guy doesn’t pay the prostitute the first time, she no longer has relations with him. Not the case with Tamar since Onan continuously took advantage of her unbeknownst to her.

 

[sidbrown]

Second comment on this one.

Not all Catholic Colleges who claim to be “Catholic” are so.

There are many Catholic colleges who are anything BUT Catholic and Notre Dame is one example.

Another thing: Chris Matthews is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. He is just one more secular propagandist who goes around in the guise of “Catholic” - something like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

=====================================================
Additional edit:

Just googled Christ Matthews and boy, what an obnoxious man. And we are supposed to take his word on contraception .

Why are they inviting him to give commencement addresses at Catholic colleges, such as Holy Cross college in Massachusetts? Why doesn’t the local bishop do something about it?

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Second comment on this one.

Not all Catholic Colleges who claim to be “Catholic” are so.

There are many Catholic colleges who are anything BUT Catholic and Notre Dame is one example.

Another thing: Chris Matthews is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. He is just one more secular propagandist who goes around in the guise of “Catholic” - something like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

=====================================================
Additional edit:

Just googled Christ Matthews and boy, what an obnoxious man. And we are supposed to take his word on contraception .

woah! Holy Cross is a great Catholic College…just wanted to point that out. God Bless!

 

[sidbrown]

woah! Holy Cross is a great Catholic College…just wanted to point that out. God Bless!

Please correct me if I am wrong, but where I disagree with Holy Cross College is the following:

1. Did they not host a conference by Planned Parenthood? And did not Planned Parenthood at the conference that they held at Holy Cross sponsor information about the use of artificial contraception. And, BTW, is not Planned PArenthood the biggest abortion provider in the USA?
2. Did they not sponsor the filthy play the V_ monologues on Ash Wednesday? Is this any way to celebrate Ash Wednesday by hosting a filthy play according to which a teenage girl says she achieves salvation by engaging in lesbian relations with an older lesbian?
3. Did they not invite Chris Matthews as commencement speaker. And did not Chris Matthews come out strongly in favor of artificial contraception and Planned Parenthood on his Hardball show a few days ago. And does not Chris Matthews oppose pro-life legislation?
   As I say, please correct me if these events, which were well reported in the news, and in particular in the local newspaper, the Worcester Telegram, are in any way incorrect.
   Thanks.

 

[stevekehl]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

The Apostle Paul wrote that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. In all things we should seek the good of others (I Corinthians 10:23-24) This rules out life destroying “contraception,” which I consider murder. However, if a married couple is seeking to limit the size of their family after having children, contraception is ok. An analogy can be made that God gave us feet, does that make driving a car a sin. We are using the technological advances God gave us within a Godly relationship. OTOH, if someone is using birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy or disease while living a sexually immoral lifestyle that is another matter.

 

[benedictus2]

The Apostle Paul wrote that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. In all things we should seek the good of others (I Corinthians 10:23-24) This rules out life destroying “contraception,” which I consider murder. However, if a married couple is seeking to limit the size of their family after having children, contraception is ok. An analogy can be made that God gave us feet, does that make driving a car a sin.

That analogy does not come remotely close to pproximating the evil that is artificial contraception. Terribly flawed.

Here’s why:
God gave us feet for walking so that we can get somewhere.
God gave us reproductive organs for reproducing.

If you don’t want to walk or get somewhere you don’t use your feet.
If you don’t want to reproduce then don’t use your reproductive organs.

Sex is meant for pro-creation it just so happens that it is also pleasurable. But the main purpose for which it was created was for procreation.

If you don’t want the possible result of children don’t have sex.

Your analogy of feet and car apply more to artificial conception or IVF.
Here’s why:
Feet are made for walking to take us somewhere.
Our reproductive organs are made for sex for procreation.
Instead of using the natural means (our feet) we use a car to take us somewhere.
Instead of your sexual organs to reproduce we use IVF.

We are using the technological advances God gave us within a Godly relationship.

A relationship that defies God and insists on perverting something that God has designed is anything but godly. It is actually a tool of the devil.

OTOH, if someone is using birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy or disease while living a sexually immoral lifestyle that is another matter.

No it isn’t. The moral or immoral lifestyle does not determine the immorality of the act. An intrinsically evil act is an evil act no matter what lifestyle one leads.

Adultery, abortion, murder, contraception are all intrinsically evil and no amount of rationalization will make it good.

 

[benedictus2]

I will just say that I believe that anyone who gives an honest reading to the entire story of Judah and Tamar must necessarily conclude that God’s plan was for Judah and Tamar to bear children (twins, in fact), and to create the tribe of Judah together. God was literally involved in every aspect of this family’s lives.

And I would just like to say that anyone who gives an honest reading of Judah and Tamar will see in there nothing that says that both Er and Onan were struck dead to protect the covenant line. Not one teeny, weeny, bit of hint will one find to this effect.

Anyone advancing such a theory fail to see that if this was the case then it was quite easy for God not to have caused Er and Onan to be born. It is absurd to think that the Omnipotent and omniscient God, created two persons who He did not want to be in his covenantal line so as an afterthought decided to kill them to make sure that the principle actors in his drama could get together.

This is a fantasy woven in mind that tried to justify its own exegesis on the text with utter disregard for rudimentary exercise of reason as has been shown in previous posts and with not one iota of proof to support such claim.

It is an exegesis that failed time and time again to be supported by facts despite its proponent’s attempt to do so.

God was so intimately involved in this family’s life, so intimately involved in fact that He is even involved in their sex life and how they use this great gift that He has given them.

If we conclude that, we simply MUST conclude that attributing the death of Onan to his use of “contraception” alone is overly-simplistic and very, very flawed because it does not take into context at ALL the reasons why Onan’s behavior was so offensive to God, as if *anyone *practicing coitus interruptus is committing an equally heinous offense.

This statement is terribly flawed and overly simplistic while pretending to be complex.

It exhibits an utterly profound lack of comprehension of the gravity of Onan’s act - contraception.

It tries to ascribe to God reasons that are not to be found either in the OT or NT but can only be found in an overly imaginative mind.

A knowledgeable reading of the text simply does not support this interpretation and misses the entire point of the narrative,

A knowledgeable reading of the text simply does not support this interpretation and misses the entire point of the narrative.

And this missing of the entire point of the narrative has been on exhibit since this kind of exegesis was advance and is evident in the fact that attempts at providing proof for this kind of interpretation failed.

which is an ongoing description of God’s personal involvement in the lives of His chosen people in order to provide them with a savior who was prophesied to hail from the line of Judah.

God’s personal involvement in the lives of His people is evident in the fact that He gave them laws and showed them the way to choose either death or life.

He is so personally involved in everyone’s flourishing that He gave them the command to go forth and multiply. Pro-creation is the way by which we image the Creator and Onan’s sin is a denial of God’s Authority of who will and will not be born.

Those who advance the theory that this “spilling of seed” is a minor offense fail to grasp the gravity of contraception.