So...should artificial birth control be illegal too?

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by Rence
Genesis 38:8-10
. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

The point is, Scripture says that spilling seed is a detestable thing. What else would the point be?

I’m not really sure why you’re so hostile about it. Really, it’s completely puzzling to me. If you think it’s not a correct teaching, I’d be VERY open to understand why you think it’s not a correct teaching. Because personally, I DON’T think sperm is the source of life. I mean, it’s right there in the Bible. It’s been said in my Church many times. But I think everyone and their brother knows it takes two to make a baby. So…why do you think it’s not a teaching? Please give me a reason to totally disregard this reading, because I would love to

You said the Church teaches condom use is wrong becuase it is “spilling seed” That si not true and posting scripture verses will not make it so.

 

[Contarini]

Jesus or Paul never spoke out about it. Actually Paul’s letter to Philemon was primarily about returning a slave to him.

I’m not quite sure how that is relevant to what I was saying. My point was simply that people may regard something as a right which is in fact not a right.

I agree that the Bible does not clearly condemn slavery, though I read Paul’s letter to Philemon as a courteously worded request to free Onesimus. Slavery can be shown to be wrong on the basis of Christian moral principles. In my opinion the same thing is true for the oppression of women, and indeed for the restriction of the priesthood to women (well, for that last one you need specifically theological principles).

Edwin

 

[kage_ar]

Originally Posted by Rence
Genesis 38:8-10
. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

The point is, Scripture says that spilling seed is a detestable thing. What else would the point be?

I’m not really sure why you’re so hostile about it. Really, it’s completely puzzling to me. If you think it’s not a correct teaching, I’d be VERY open to understand why you think it’s not a correct teaching. Because personally, I DON’T think sperm is the source of life. I mean, it’s right there in the Bible. It’s been said in my Church many times. But I think everyone and their brother knows it takes two to make a baby. So…why do you think it’s not a teaching? Please give me a reason to totally disregard this reading, because I would love to

“Spilling seed” is a euphemism for an immoral act, it is a translation in the version of the Bible you are reading.

If you read HV, the link has been made available to you, you will understand the reason why contraception is sinful.

 

[choose_to_love]

guys, Rence does understand HV - - she has identified it as one source of Church teaching on responsible parenthood in prior posts.

That being said, Rence, I think what kage and estes are objecting to is your description of sperm as the source of life. If you will look at the passage you quoted, it does not say that sperm is the source of life. It says that using withdrawal as a means of contraception is detestable such that God slew Onan. Now, if memory serves, there was a belief at one time that the sperm was the source of life, but that was based on an outdated view of biology, and in any event, is not the basis of the Church’s understanding of the intrinsically disordered nature of contraception.

As has been pointed out several times on this thread, the natural law reveals that procreation and the unity of the spouses (babies and bonding) are inseparable elements of sex (n.b. not strictly speaking pleasure, btw), as created by God, in His image. So, as regards Onan, he purposefully separated the purposes of sex, and was struck down.

As to the larger points on this thread, what I think I am hearing Rence and some others say is that the reason for a law in a secular democracy cannot be “because the Church says so” or for a reason based upon revelation, such as being created in the image and likeness of God.

That being said, there must be, and typically always are, apparent secular reasons why the Church teaches what it teaches. Contarini has basically stated as much, if I am reading him correctly. For instance, could the state draw the conclusion that BC makes infidelity easier, which a) weakens marriages, as it is easier to cheat, b) causes more out-of -wedlock births when single people have sex and the BC fails, which leads to c) single-parent families, who then have d) more poverty/more kids raised in poverty, etc.? The reasons have to be the plausible result, not the underlying theological reason. Of course, as regards abortion and abortifacient means of contraception, the state already has the right and duty to protect life, so there is another basis.

I think that laws that would be immoral would involve confessions of articles of faith, i.e., you must sign a statement that you believe in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, his Divinity, etc., as being things that cannot be mandated or required for some public benefit.

Also as an aside, I do not think the Church definitively teaches that ensoulment occurs at conception. I think it definitively teaches that we do not know for certain when ensoulment occurs, but that science has shown us quite clearly that a new human life is present at conception, and that intentionally taking an innocent life is never moral; we must err on the side of caution.

 

[Rence]

guys, Rence does understand HV - - she has identified it as one source of Church teaching on responsible parenthood in prior posts.

Thanks for that

Now, if memory serves, there was a belief at one time that the sperm was the source of life, but that was based on an outdated view of biology, and in any event, is not the basis of the Church’s understanding of the intrinsically disordered nature of contraception.

Ok, so they changed this teaching. Fine with me But some places are still teaching it. I didn’t know they changed their view based on new biology. Thanks for that, I appreciate it!

As to the larger points on this thread, what I think I am hearing Rence and some others say is that the reason for a law in a secular democracy cannot be “because the Church says so” or for a reason based upon revelation, such as being created in the image and likeness of God.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Because I don’t expect non-believers to have to follow the laws of Christians when they don’t believe, agree or care about Christian laws. And I completely relate: I don’t believe, agree, or care about Muslim laws, therefore, why should I be forced to follow their laws? The principle is the SAME.

 

[kage_ar]

Ok, so they changed this teaching. Fine with me But some places are still teaching it. I didn’t know they changed their view based on new biology. Thanks for that, I appreciate it!

Would you either PRODUCE evidence of an official Catholic source teaching this or retract it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now see, that’s what I don’t understand.

There can’t be one ‘truth’ that applies to say Christians, and another ‘different’ truth that applies to nonChristians.

Truth is truth.

It’s like saying that hey, the law of gravity only applies to certain groups of people but not to others, or that water will only be ‘wet’ to one group of people but will be ‘dry’ for another group.

I’m sure that a lot of people don’t totally understand, say, algebra… . but that doesn’t mean that they can take 2 + b = 8 and say that b is 5, or 7, or ‘pink flamingos’ just because they don’t ‘accept’ that b = 6. They can’t say, "well in this equation it is only 6 for THAT group, but it’s something else for US.’

So why on earth (or heaven) do people think that non-recognition of truth means that a person can be justified in presenting a falsehood as truth?

If I insisted that the teachers at all schools, the accountants, the bankers etc. had to accept b as 5, 7, or pink flamingo as a LEGITIMATE ‘answer’, I think you know that I would not succeed in getting them to accept this because it simply isn’t true. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s darn how much I ‘believe’ in MY answer.

Truth is truth.

Just because we have some loud individuals who have embraced falsehood and scream that it’s truth won’t make them right. And we don’t have to go around saying, "black is white, white is black, sin is virtue, what is right for you isn’t right for me’ just because some very confused individuals have been brainwashed into thinking that the only way to be tolerant is to accept 6 impossible things before breakfast.

Good golly Moses. I cannot imagine people in their right minds saying, for example. . .
The time after sunrise and until sunset is daytime. . .unless, of course, you wish to call it ‘nighttime.’ (Because you have a ‘right’ to call it whatever you like, as long as it ‘works’ for you and you aren’t ‘hurting’ anybody.) And nobody who calls it nighttime should be ‘forced’ to call it daytime. In fact, because they are ‘discriminated against’ by the evil majority, they should have MORE rights. Anything that is labeled as being ‘daytime’ in any way should be forced by LAW to say "nighttime’ as well.

 

[Rence]

Tantum_Ergo, I **completely **understand where you’re coming from. Imagine my frustration in arguing with an athiest friend of mine that God was real and her constantly coming back for me to prove it. I used the 2+2=4 not 5 on her too, because I don’t get how anyone can deny the existence of God. But she kept saying that we can prove the sky is blue by looking up, we can prove 2+2 is indeed 4 and not 5, etc, but I couldn’t prove to her that God is real. She kept saying that I was the one in LaLa Land.

Apparently there is truth for Catholics and truth for those who aren’t. I mean, isn’t our belief in God a matter of faith? How can that be measured? How can that be proved? There is no concrete evidence that God exists for a non-believer…and isn’t that the way He wanted it? Because really, what merit would faith have if everything about our faith could be proven in black and white?

Imagine arguing with someone who doesn’t believe that there is a soul in an embryo. That’s something we can’t prove. But you and I believe it’s there. What proof of it is there? I don’t even think it’s clear among practicing catholics when a soul enters a pregnancy. I’m not even sure it matters for you and me.

Tantum_Ergo, not to hijack this thread, but when you come up with how to answer those two let me know, because I could use it IRL. I find that unless someone is called to the faith and accepts the call, there is no truth to prove. You either believe or you don’t. You can’t convince an nonbeliever that something is True no matter how much you believe it to be True.

 

[edwest2]

Tantum_Ergo, I **completely **understand where you’re coming from. Imagine my frustration in arguing with an athiest friend of mine that God was real and her constantly coming back for me to prove it. I used the 2+2=4 not 5 on her too, because I don’t get how anyone can deny the existence of God. But she kept saying that we can prove the sky is blue by looking up, we can prove 2+2 is indeed 4 and not 5, etc, but I couldn’t prove to her that God is real. She kept saying that I was the one in LaLa Land.

Apparently there is truth for Catholics and truth for those who aren’t. I mean, isn’t our belief in God a matter of faith? How can that be measured? How can that be proved? There is no concrete evidence that God exists for a non-believer…and isn’t that the way He wanted it? Because really, what merit would faith have if everything about our faith could be proven in black and white?

Imagine arguing with someone who doesn’t believe that there is a soul in an embryo. That’s something we can’t prove. But you and I believe it’s there. What proof of it is there? I don’t even think it’s clear among practicing catholics when a soul enters a pregnancy. I’m not even sure it matters for you and me.

Tantum_Ergo, not to hijack this thread, but when you come up with how to answer those two let me know, because I could use it IRL. I find that unless someone is called to the faith and accepts the call, there is no truth to prove. You either believe or you don’t. You can’t convince an nonbeliever that something is True no matter how much you believe it to be True.

It does matter, because the Church teaches that human life exists from conception to natural death. Any vagueness about this principle allows room for false ideas.

Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Contarini:
You have to distinguish between “forcing people to be Catholic” and “forcing people to live by Catholic rules.” They aren’t the same.

Indeed people can’t be forced to be Catholics, or to be Christians more broadly. This is true for exactly the reason you give.

But if the purpose of law is to promote the common good, and if Catholic “rules” promote the common good, then the question of whether people should be forced to live by “Catholic rules” deserves further consideration. Such laws do not force people to believe–they force them to behave morally, just as laws against murder and theft do. I do not think that laws forcing everyone to abide by Catholic moral teaching would violate basic human rights. However, apart from the fact that I’m more dubious about certain things (such as birth control) than Catholics are and see others as possibly less serious than conservative Catholics do (I’m not at all sure that fornication is a mortal sin, for instance, though it’s certainly at least a venial one), I think that trying to enforce all of Catholic morality would be “inconvenient” (to use a wonderful scholastic term). It would do more harm than good, and it would create an atmosphere of repression and suspicion that would be extremely unhealthy.

Edwin

“basic human rights”? Can you name one basic human right that is violated by Catholic teaching?

Thank you,
Ed

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Now, if memory serves, there was a belief at one time that the sperm was the source of life, but that was based on an outdated view of biology, and in any event, is not the basis of the Church’s understanding of the intrinsically disordered nature of contraception.
Ok, so they changed this teaching. Fine with me But some places are still teaching it. I didn’t know they changed their view based on new biology. Thanks for that, I appreciate it!

So, basically you;re saying that they’ve changed a Church teaching that I have never heard of. Where is this being teached? That’s just bizarre. GOD is the source of life. The issue, as a Catholic, is deferring to God’s Will above our own wishes and being open to life and having relations within the marital relationship only.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Because I don’t expect non-believers to have to follow the laws of Christians when they don’t believe, agree or care about Christian laws. And I completely relate: I don’t believe, agree, or care about Muslim laws, therefore, why should I be forced to follow their laws? The principle is the SAME.

The Truth is that the law should be based on all people’s inalienable rights, including that of our unborn, REGARDLESS of Catholic teaching. To use your example, you may not believe, agree or care about Muslim laws, but if a fanatic Muslim were to come here kill Americans you would care, and you would have a both a right and a responsibility to stop them.

I believe that the same is true in terms of the unborn. We have a right and a responsiblity as both as a human being, and particularly as a Catholic, to stop them from being killed. That’s not Catholic, it’s humane, as the many secular humanists and agnostic who are prolife will tell you. If it weren’t for that other human being your comment might have some validity, but alas. A life is a life is a life. Doesn’t matter if your Catholic, protestant, agnostic or pagan. IF you are Catholic, then the simple fact that GOD created this life tells you what His will is.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

"Timbothefiveth:

A Why not? History will show it’s worked in the past. From the South in the 1860s to Germany in the 1940s to, indirectly, Russia in the 1990s, it’s worked.

This doesn’t make it right, it only shows the depth humans will go in their arrogance.

How is ending slavery, nazism, or communism arrogance?

 

[Brendan]

So, basically you;re saying that they’ve changed a Church teaching that I have never heard of. Where is this being teached? That’s just bizarre. GOD is the source of life. The issue, as a Catholic, is deferring to God’s Will above our own wishes and being open to life and having relations within the marital relationship only.

Don’t worry. It was never a Church teaching ( which, by defintion, is one the subject of Faith or Morals)

Questions of Natural Philosophy, of which this would be one, were DISCUSSED by the Church, but not ruled on by the Church.

 

[Rogerteder]

There are some who believe it causes abortion, right?

What about adultery and divorce…should they be illegal too…since those things go against Church teaching as well?

yes