Tubes tied question

[Shiann]

Firebug:

I agree that NFP or abstinence would be the way to go, but if you think that she is going to just get her tubes tied anyway, even after mentioning the above alternatives, should one really enlighten her that she would be wrong in doing it? At least then, she could stay ignorant, and be free of sin? Am I wrong in thinking this?

My prayers are with her!
-Christina

Yes, this thinking is in error.

We are also called to support our fellow man in their journey to God. A large part of Mercy is showing other’s when their actions and thoughts sway away from God.

If one ignored this aspect of Mercy- it would seem that it isn’t just the woman who is treading on sinfull ground.

 

[Firebug]

Shiann:

Yes, this thinking is in error.

We are also called to support our fellow man in their journey to God. A large part of Mercy is showing other’s when their actions and thoughts sway away from God.

If one ignored this aspect of Mercy- it would seem that it isn’t just the woman who is treading on sinfull ground.

Thank you for that information. I was uncertain of that, but had heard it somewhere.

 

[BibleReader]

felra:

Sexual intercourse in the confines of a sacramental marriage is never immoral.

Abstinence (marital continence) does not destroy the unitive aspect of married sexual love, it simply does not activate it.

I suppose this would be true if your premise is true, which it is not. There is still the moral option of abstinence. Also, the only 100% to prevent a pregnancy that may be life threatening to the mother (and baby) is through abstinence or through removal of the ovaries or castration. The truly loving and self-sacrificing thing to do if truly the wife’s life is on the line with a future pregnancy is to abstain, NOT to introduce a lie into the marital embrace (which is precisely what any form of contraception/sterilization does). Good intentions do not make an illicit action moral; one may never do evil that good may come of it (so says the Church).

I notice that you obviously exclude the one truly loving action as emulated by Christ—to lay down one’s life that others may live. This is mutual sacrifice (marital continence) for a higher good. Yours is a distorted redefinition of the meaning of the fullness of marital love.

Hi, felra.

You are wrong again and again and again.

Also, you did not read my hypothetical carefully.

felra: Sexual intercourse in the confines of a sacramental marriage is never immoral.

This is simply wrong. *It can’t possibly be true that it is moral to functionally kill the self or kill the spouse by having sex. It can’t possibly be true that it is moral to functionally incur the substantial real risk of killing the self or killing the spouse by having sex. *That’s crazy.

In my hypothetical, there is a substantial real risk that sex = death for the woman, without contraceptive measures.

felra: Abstinence (marital continence) does not destroy the unitive aspect of married sexual love, it simply does not activate it.

I disagree. Intentionally refraining from sex is to intentionally refrain from applying the unitive aspect of sex to the marriage. Even Paul says abstinence should only be “for a time.” 1 Corinthians 7:5. Now, where, in my hypothetical, we have a case that the man wants sex, the man is being deprived of that to which he is entitled, by God’s Own laws. The woman’s body isn’t the woman’s, but the man’s, so that deprivation of sex must be by mutual consent. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5.

Just as a man and woman may not, in a binding marriage, validly refrain from having children, they probably lack the right, in a binding marriage, to deprive themselves, “except by mutual consent for a time,” of the unitive aspect.

My argument is this: If there is NO CHANCE that a pregnancy can produce a viable human life beyond two months of pregnancy, use of birth control doesn’t prevent the propogation of the species, to any practical extent, and if the husband wants sex then NOT using birth control of some sort to keep the woman from dying when she has sex with her husband, and instead substituting-in unilateral abstinence, is probably implicitly evil.

 

[BibleReader]

felra: I suppose this would be true if your premise is true, which it is not. There is still the moral option of abstinence.

You’re “bootstrapping” here. You can’t use as the argument the thing to be proven.

The QUESTION is, Is abstinence in the context of my hypothetical moral?

felra: Also, the only 100% to prevent a pregnancy that may be life threatening to the mother (and baby) is through abstinence or through removal of the ovaries or castration.

You did not read my hypothetical carefully. The 100% guaranteed thing in the hypothetical is not non-conception. The thing which is 100% guaranteed in the hypothetical is the fetus’ death, by the end of two months, every single time, due to scarring in the uterus, which flatly guarantees, to an absolute medical certainty, that the fetus will grow larger till either it is aborted, or miscarried, or until both mother and fetus die. Where there is an absolute medical certainty that either (1) just the fetus or (2) the fetus AND the mother will die, there is in fact a flat moral requirement that we opt for Choice #1, to the extent that doing so is in our power.

**felra: The truly loving and self-sacrificing thing to do if truly the wife’s life is on the line with a future pregnancy is to abstain, NOT to introduce a lie into the marital embrace (which is precisely what any form of contraception/sterilization does). Good intentions do not make an illicit action moral; one may never do evil that good may come of it (so says the Church). **

With respect, these are nothing but a bunch of nice-sounding truisms and platitudes that ignore the facts of the hypothetical.

Where the Natural-Law-proected interest offended by use of contraceptives is conception of a fetus which must always die before two months into the pregnancy, using contraceptives to keep the same woman from dying while she satisfies her husband’s 1 Corinthians 7 RIGHT TO SEX is as “immoral” as a woman with NO womb using contraceptives, AND it donates the unitive role of human sexuality, acknowledged in Humanae Vitae, to the relationship.

The idea is this: Where the husband, by his desire to access his right to sex, wishes to cement the relationship with the unitive role of sex, where a conceived child CAN’T LIVE BEYOND TWO MONTHS IN THE WOMB, IT’S NOT WORTH DEPRIVING THE HUSBAND, AND THE RELATIONSHIP, OF THE UNITIVE ROLE.

The rules against contraception aren’t a god, to be worshipped. They are a moral requirement when using contraceptives artificially severs the risk of human reproduction from sexual pleasure. Where the human reproduction generated by the sex in a particular sense will always result in a non-viable fetus, prohibiting contraceptives to keep the woman from dying are not only not offensive to Nature’s interests, but MORALLY REQUIRED, if the abstinence decision would be unilateral.

You’re just ignoring Paul, as though he weren’t inspired, as though 1 Corinthians 7 didn’t exist. In effect, you seem to be overruling God.

felra: I notice that you obviously exclude the one truly loving action as emulated by Christ—to lay down one’s life that others may live.

What the heck are you talking about??? In my hypothetical, the fetus’ death is medically guaranteed every single time.

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

H
I disagree. Intentionally refraining from sex is to intentionally refrain from applying the unitive aspect of sex to the marriage. Even Paul says abstinence should only be “for a time.” 1 Corinthians 7:5. Now, where, in my hypothetical, we have a case that the man wants sex, the man is being deprived of that to which he is entitled, by God’s Own laws. The woman’s body isn’t the woman’s, but the man’s, so that deprivation of sex must be by mutual consent. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5.

Just as a man and woman may not, in a binding marriage, validly refrain from having children, they probably lack the right, in a binding marriage, to deprive themselves, “except by mutual consent for a time,” of the unitive aspect.

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)…

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,"** it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it** (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong…

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[BibleReader]

fix:

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)…

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,"** it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it** (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong…

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hi, fix.

You did not read my hypothetical carefully either.

(a) I have a client who is a very pretty girl, who was born with ovaries and Faloopian tubes, but no uterus.

May she morally use contraceptives?

OF COURSE! GOD COULDN’T CARE LESS!

(b) In my hypothetical, is it "impair[ing] the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, " is it “frustrat[ing] His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradict[ing] the will of the Author of life,” to use contraceptives to keep a fetus which to a medical certainty can’t possibly live more than two months in the womb – which MUST DIE before two months in the womb EVERY SINGLE TIME – from killing the mother?

I suspect not. I think that God will damn the mother to Hell for unilaterally shoving sexual abstinence down her husband’s throat, when doing so serves no real good purpose at all, for making a bad moral balance.

Remember: In my hypothetical, a birth of a viable fetus is medically impossible, if she conceives, and conception of that fetus kills the mother.

 

[NFPfamily]

There are times when people have to face abstinence for various medical conditions. Some people face paralysis, others heart conditions, etc.

Whatever the reason may be, it would be a sin in any case to go against God’s design and contracept. Sex is a wonderful expression of love for marriage, but it shouldn’t be the only expression of love. In the face of abstinence for medical reasons, couples can do what they need to do in order to make it work. The point is that we should be living for God and doing things to please Him- it has been made clear in the Church that contracepting is intrinsically evil, therefore it should never be considered under any circumstances.

 

[felra]

Also, you did not read my hypothetical carefully.
]
This is simply wrong. *It can’t possibly be true that it is moral to functionally kill the self or kill the spouse by having sex. It can’t possibly be true that it is moral to functionally incur the substantial real risk of killing the self or killing the spouse by having sex. *That’s crazy.

This is your emotional reasoning here.

In my hypothetical, there is a substantial real risk that sex = death for the woman, without contraceptive measures.

You seem to think that marital continence will mean the death for the marriage. This is not the Cahtolic understanding of the meaning and sacramental expression of marital love.

I disagree. Intentionally refraining from sex is to intentionally refrain from applying the unitive aspect of sex to the marriage. Even Paul says abstinence should only be “for a time.” 1 Corinthians 7:5. Now, where, in my hypothetical, we have a case that the man wants sex, the man is being deprived of that to which he is entitled, by God’s Own laws. The woman’s body isn’t the woman’s, but the man’s, so that deprivation of sex must be by mutual consent. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5.

Hhhmmm, conspicuously absent is any mention of “procreative” in your above assertion. The Churches teaches that one may never divorce the procreative from the unitive aspect of marital intercourse, to do so is to deny the sacramental (sign of Gos) reality of martial covenantal love.

Just as a man and woman may not, in a binding marriage, validly refrain from having children, they probably lack the right, in a binding marriage, to deprive themselves, “except by mutual consent for a time,” of the unitive aspect.

Another personal opinion. “except by mutual consent for a time,” = marital continence, this sounds biblical to me. The “for a time” may be longer than some of us are used to considering, but in either case, it is not for lifetime, now is it?

My argument is this: If there is NO CHANCE that a pregnancy can produce a viable human life beyond two months of pregnancy, use of birth control doesn’t prevent the propogation of the species, to any practical extent, and if the husband wants sex then NOT using birth control of some sort to keep the woman from dying when she has sex with her husband, and instead substituting-in unilateral abstinence, is probably implicitly evil.

Yes, let’s blame the woman for the lack of the discipline of self-mastery in service of the virtue virtue of chastity. How about the bible verse of “keeping the marriage bed undefiled”? This “want it” (my "right’ to have it) husband would do better to meditate upon this more applicable verse from Ephesians where St. Paul instructs husbands on what it means to love their wives “without spot or wrinkle”:

Ephesians 5: 25-27 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

 

[felra]

The QUESTION is, Is abstinence in the context of my hypothetical moral?

See the quote from HV posted by fix.

You did not read my hypothetical carefully. The 100% guaranteed thing in the hypothetical is not non-conception. The thing which is 100% guaranteed in the hypothetical is the fetus’ death, by the end of two months, every single time, due to scarring in the uterus, which flatly guarantees, to an absolute medical certainty, that the fetus will grow larger till either it is aborted, or miscarried, or until both mother and fetus die. Where there is an absolute medical certainty that either (1) just the fetus or (2) the fetus AND the mother will die, there is in fact a flat moral requirement that we opt for Choice #1, to the extent that doing so is in our power.

The only moral guarantee, 100% that is, is to abide by authoritative Church teachings in such tough and unfortunate situations.

With respect, these are nothing but a bunch of nice-sounding truisms and platitudes that ignore the facts of the hypothetical.

Then try these:

“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 therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being” (Humane Vitae).

“As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing. Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin” (Casti Connubii).

Where the Natural-Law-proected interest offended by use of contraceptives is conception of a fetus which must always die before two months into the pregnancy, using contraceptives to keep the same woman from dying while she satisfies her husband’s 1 Corinthians 7 RIGHT TO SEX is as “immoral” as a woman with NO womb using contraceptives, AND it donates the unitive role of human sexuality, acknowledged in Humanae Vitae, to the relationship.
The idea is this: Where the husband, by his desire to access his right to sex, wishes to cement the relationship with the unitive role of sex, where a conceived child CAN’T LIVE BEYOND TWO MONTHS IN THE WOMB, IT’S NOT WORTH DEPRIVING THE HUSBAND, AND THE RELATIONSHIP, OF THE UNITIVE ROLE.

This is just more of that “sense of entitlement” stuff that palgues this generation. Nothing is worth going to hell over, now is it?
The rules against contraception aren’t a god, to be worshipped. They are a moral requirement when using contraceptives artificially severs the risk of human reproduction from sexual pleasure. Where the human reproduction generated by the sex in a particular sense will always result in a non-viable fetus, prohibiting contraceptives to keep the woman from dying are not only not offensive to Nature’s interests, but MORALLY REQUIRED, if the abstinence decision would be unilateral.

You’re just ignoring Paul, as though he weren’t inspired, as though 1 Corinthians 7 didn’t exist. In effect, you seem to be overruling God.
Again, you seem to have a problem with the binding moral teaching authority of the Church.

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

Hi, fix.

You did not read my hypothetical carefully either.

I read carefully, I just disagree with your reasoning.

(a) I have a client who is a very pretty girl, who was born with ovaries and Faloopian tubes, but no uterus.

May she morally use contraceptives?

OF COURSE! GOD COULDN’T CARE LESS!

That is your opinion, but what authority are you basing it on?

Now, I am not a moral theologian and I may be wrong about this next assertion, but it seems to me even if one has no uterous, one may still concieve a life as life begins at conception. The life may not be viable to term, but a life would come into existence. I would think contraception would still be wrong, but others may have more insight than knowledge than I have on this topic.

(b) In my hypothetical, is it "impair[ing] the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, " is it “frustrat[ing] His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradict[ing] the will of the Author of life,” to use contraceptives to keep a fetus which to a medical certainty can’t possibly live more than two months in the womb – which MUST DIE before two months in the womb EVERY SINGLE TIME – from killing the mother?

A life is a life. A soul is a soul. One may never do evil even if good comes of it. When speaking of moral acts we must always consider the intention.

I suspect not. I think that God will damn the mother to Hell for unilaterally shoving sexual abstinence down her husband’s throat, when doing so serves no real good purpose at all, for making a bad moral balance.

But this reasoning is feeling and opinion, not objective truth. Your conscience does not invent right and wrong. One’s conscience may learn right and wrong, but it must be properly formed. That formation is not equal to one’s feelings.

Remember: In my hypothetical, a birth of a viable fetus is medically impossible, if she conceives, and conception of that fetus kills the mother.

Viablilty is not the issue. An immortal soul is the issue.

 

[BibleReader]

**fix: That is your opinion, but what authority are you basing it on?

Now, I am not a moral theologian and I may be wrong about this next assertion, but it seems to me even if one has no uterous, one may still concieve a life as life begins at conception. The life may not be viable to term, but a life would come into existence. I would think contraception would still be wrong, but others may have more insight than knowledge than I have on this topic.**

Oh my Heavens.

The girl HAD NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VAGINA AND FALLOPIAN TUBES.

Her tract was as dead as a doornail.

Believe me, both of her husbands were perfectly fertile – both had had children by other wives, without difficulty. That is why she went to the doctor, and discovered that other non-uterus entrails grew into the gap.

 

[BibleReader]

felra:

Again, you seem to have a problem with the binding moral teaching authority of the Church.

Why is it that so many Catholics think that the Bible is NOT from the binding moral teaching authority of the Church, or for some reason LESS comprehensible than an encyclical or Counciliar declaration?

When the Magisterium declared the Canon to be the Canon, it functionally adopted the Bible is its own expression. It is 100% as binding as, say, Humanae Vitae. And Humanae Vitae and every other encyclical or declaration are just as dense and in need of interpreting.

What’s the matter with the Bible? Is it crippled or something? Why does my respecting it AS a Magisterial teaching imply that I don’t respect Magisterial teaching? Tell me, please. Explain, please.

 

[BibleReader]

fix:

Viablilty is not the issue. An immortal soul is the issue.

See, you SAY that you respect the teaching authority of the Church, but you are CLEARLY just relegating to the trash heap the “unitive significance” of human heterosexual sex which Pope Paul VI declared to have been established by God Himself.

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The question posed by my hypothetical is, if the situation balances the unitive significance of sex against a mere 1 in 20 chance that a fertilized egg which can’t possibly live beyond two months might be conceived, does this “unitive signifance” established by God have any value at all, or are Pope Paul’s words really just hollow, nonsensical clap-trap? Is it possible that a fertilization with a 1-in-20 chance of occurring, doomed to die in 2 months after it does, is not “procreatively significant” VIS-A-VIS THE GOD-ESTABLISH “UNITIVE SIGNIFICANCE”?

Is “unitive significance” complete hogwash or isn’t it?

In my opinion, and in Pope Paul’s opinion, too, in my opinion, unitive significance can not be ignored, as you do, under the circumstances of the case.

 

[BibleReader]

I will re-read all of your posts in the next few days, fix, to see if you said anything persuasive that I missed.

So far, I am unconvinced that the girl, by unilaterally shoving abstinence down her husband’s throat in the circumstances outlined in the hypothetical, is not disobeying the requirement of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in 1 Corinthians 7.

 

[BlindSheep]

BibleReader:

See, you SAY that you respect the teaching authority of the Church, but you are CLEARLY just relegating to the trash heap the “unitive significance” of human heterosexual sex which Pope Paul VI declared to have been established by God Himself.

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The question posed by my hypothetical is, if the situation balances the unitive significance of sex against a mere 1 in 20 chance that a fertilized egg which can’t possibly live beyond two months might be conceived, does this “unitive signifance” established by God have any value at all, or are Pope Paul’s words really just hollow, nonsensical clap-trap? Is it possible that a fertilization with a 1-in-20 chance of occurring, doomed to die in 2 months after it does, is not “procreatively significant” VIS-A-VIS THE GOD-ESTABLISH “UNITIVE SIGNIFICANCE”?

Is “unitive significance” complete hogwash or isn’t it?

In my opinion, and in Pope Paul’s opinion, too, in my opinion, unitive significance can not be ignored, as you do, under the circumstances of the case.

“Which man may not break”
It seems to me that the unitive significance is already destroyed if it is deliberately separated from the procreative significance.

 

[Ruthie]

“Bible Reader,”

I would have no respect whatsoever for a man who demands sex from his wife when he knows darn well that getting pregnant could kill her. Ditto if he demands that she commit a mortal sin just so he can do his thing.

There is nothing in 1 Cor 7:2-6 that gives a spouse the right to demand sex from the other. Read verse 6 over again several times.

“Waah waah! You, by refusing to risk your life and/or commit a mortal sin, are keeping ME from getting what I want! You bad person!”

Doesn’t sound very grown up, does it?

:tsktsk:

 

[felra]

Why is it that so many Catholics think that the Bible is NOT from the binding moral teaching authority of the Church, or for some reason LESS comprehensible than an encyclical or Counciliar declaration?

When the Magisterium declared the Canon to be the Canon, it functionally adopted the Bible is its own expression. It is 100% as binding as, say, Humanae Vitae. And Humanae Vitae and every other encyclical or declaration are just as dense and in need of interpreting.

I am not sure what your point is here. You seem to be creating a gray area for yourself where the binding teachings of the Church and the objective meaning of the bible are “just as dense and in need of interpreting”. So, if you don’t agree with what the Church has clearly taught, you can claim it is too “dense and in need of interpreting”. How convenient. This is a recipe for chaos as evidenced by the 50,000+ Protestant denominations. Read below what Humanae Vitae has to say to folks like you who believe that the Church teaching is up to individual interpretation:

4. Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation.

No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared,[1] that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments,[2] constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation.[3]

What’s the matter with the Bible? Is it crippled or something? Why does my respecting it AS a Magisterial teaching imply that I don’t respect Magisterial teaching? Tell me, please. Explain, please.

Simply because you are assigning yourself ( “my respecting it”) the authority to make personal interpretation of its objective meaning in matters of faith and morals. Jesus did not give you (or any laity or religious except the Vicar of Christ and those Bishops in concert with the teaching of the magesterium) the authority to act as guardian and interpreter of the moral law, the natural law, or the law of the Gospel. This is what it means to be Catholic.

You also attempt to create the false impression that the authoritative Church teachings are not fully consant and one with the bible. You pit one against the other. Why is this?

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

The girl HAD NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VAGINA AND FALLOPIAN TUBES.

Her tract was as dead as a doornail.

The sperm and egg could still unite to form life. Life begins at conception, not implantation. Again, I am not speaking as an authority on this issue.

Believe me, both of her husbands were perfectly fertile – both had had children by other wives, without difficulty. That is why she went to the doctor, and discovered that other non-uterus entrails grew into the gap.

What is your point?

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

Oh my Heavens.

The girl HAD NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VAGINA AND FALLOPIAN TUBES.

Her tract was as dead as a doornail.

Believe me, both of her husbands were perfectly fertile – both had had children by other wives, without difficulty. That is why she went to the doctor, and discovered that other non-uterus entrails grew into the gap.

If there is some morphological pathology that would prohibit sperm from reaching an egg, then there is no issue. So, what is your point?

 

[fix]

BibleReader:

I will re-read all of your posts in the next few days, fix, to see if you said anything persuasive that I missed.

So far, I am unconvinced that the girl, by unilaterally shoving abstinence down her husband’s throat in the circumstances outlined in the hypothetical, is not disobeying the requirement of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in 1 Corinthians 7.

I am a bit confused by your words.