Understanding the Truth in Regards to Contraception

[Abu]

Jonatello #57

so why did He kill Onan?
Fr John’s interpretation of “always and everywhere” does not convince me
my sense is Onan either A: wasn’t killed by God after all, or B: this was a highly unusual situation for highly unusual reasons that are specific to Onan’s case, and thus probably have very little to do with masturbation or contraception.

Your “sense” equates to “feel”, and Catholics try to think with the mind of the Church, not based on feelings.

Since the late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, Catholics realise that he knows what he is teaching.

Fr Torraco would also have known that Pope Pius XI had taught the truth about Onanism and of the overwhelming agreement on its sinfulness:
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].
See: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Catholics grow in faith and morals by listening, learning and loving the truth, and acting upon it.

 

[John21652]

My problem with your explanation is that the claim of purpose is a simple assertion. You say ‘sex has a unitive and procreative’ purpose, but with equal logic I could say that the purpose of sex is ‘to have fun’ and that it coincidentally produces relationships and babies. Or that the purpose of sex is to ‘experience pleasure so we will understand, in a human way, the spiritual ecstasies which await us in heaven’. In all discussion of natural law, the ‘purpose’ is just made up. your made-up purpose is no more valid than mine.

Oh, you are very wrong. Philosophically, scientifically and sociologically very wrong.
What you write is invalid.

All the scienctific and sociological evidence is that the end purpose of sex is pro-creation. This holds true across all mammalian animal species. Another scientifically and sociologically proven aspect of sex is that it is unitive for mammals. More so for some species than others, but unitive for most. Another scientific and sociological truth is that sex is pleasurable. The pleasurable and untive aspects of the sex drive, for that is what it is, are secondary to the pro-creational aspect. The pleasurable and untive aspects simply ensure that the next generation will arrive and be cared for. The end result, the end or final purpose, scientifically established, is the new generation.

For you to state that the purpose of sex is pleasure is to not think through to the final purpose of what the sex drive aims for. It is a shallow analysis. Hence its invalidity.

 

[Jonatello]

Jonatello #57
Your “sense” equates to “feel”, and Catholics try to think with the mind of the Church, not based on feelings.

Since the late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, Catholics realise that he knows what he is teaching.

Fr Torraco would also have known that Pope Pius XI had taught the truth about Onanism and of the overwhelming agreement on its sinfulness:
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii

(31 December 1930)].
See: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Catholics grow in faith and morals by listening, learning and loving the truth, and acting upon it.

actually, in this case, “feel” is not a good synonym for my use of the word “sense”. “the sense i get” or “the impression i get” are figures of speech meant to express something along the lines of “when i use my brain and think about it, this is what makes the most sense”

“nearly all” really seems to mean “nearly all of the ones we agree with enough to count”

Plus I’d think one has to keep in mind the cultural/religious/political climate in the times of all these theologians, where I’d imagine disagreeing with such an interpretation of Onan would be extremely taboo, uniformly for virtually all of these cited theologians.

and regardless of the percentage of accepted theologians who agree with “x”, if it doesn’t make sense to people, its worth challenging. Thus far, all the explanations of this interpretation i’ve heard don’t seem to make sense when you think it through.

If men who masturbate are doing the same thing that caused or compelled God to kill Onan, or men who use condoms, then why did Onan receive special wrath for something that virtually everyone else who did it (billions upon billions of men) got away with?

 

[Abu]

Jonatello #61
and regardless of the percentage of accepted theologians who agree with “x”, if it doesn’t make sense to people, its worth challenging. Thus far, all the explanations of this interpretation i’ve heard don’t seem to make sense when you think it through.

Here we have a denigration of the fact that “Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church,” who are now ridiculed by Jonatello – how bizarre in a “Catholic” – as well as arrogance towards Pope Pius XI who taught this truth in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is another example of God’s wrath against those who committed grave sins, in this case that of sodomy.

Both are examples of God’s justice, recorded in the Sacred Scriptures as reminders for everyone, ridiculed by those who feel they should know better than Christ’s Church and place their views ahead of reality, yet profess to be “Catholic”.

 

[Jonatello]

Here we have a denigration of the fact that “Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church,” who are now ridiculed by Jonatello – how bizarre in a “Catholic” – as well as arrogance towards Pope Pius XI who taught this truth in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is another example of God’s wrath against those who committed grave sins, in this case that of sodomy.

Both are examples of God’s justice, recorded in the Sacred Scriptures as reminders for everyone, ridiculed by those who feel they should know better than Christ’s Church and place their views ahead of reality, yet profess to be “Catholic”.

aye…nobody’s ridiculing anyone…or at least i’m not. I’m expressing my honest expectation of what i suspect to be a particular common limitation of your source’s cited theologians. EVERYBODY has limitations. I’m not ridiculing them. I’m also not ridiculing Fr John Echert. I merely said I’m not convinced by his definition of “always and everywhere”, nor does his citing that others agree with him (and you citing that he agrees because others agree) help it make any more sense.

I believe the fact that you take honest disagreement/questioning as ridicule and denigration is a sign that you come into this conversation in a far too confrontational spirit.

Meanwhile, you’re avoiding my questions about the actual rationale of the Onan interpretation to defend the honor of some theologians that you think i’ve disgraced by simply saying i’m not convinced by simply hearing their names dropped.

 

[mark_a]

If men who masturbate are doing the same thing that caused or compelled God to kill Onan, or men who use condoms, then why did Onan receive special wrath for something that virtually everyone else who did it (billions upon billions of men) got away with?

Indeed.

Which begs the question: Why would Moses even include such an insignificant “aside” when most of the storyline is about Onan’s brother’s widow and Onan’s father??

 

[sw85]

It should be quite obvious that Onan’s primary sin was disobedience to God – to my knowledge the only offense in the Bible that is consistently punished with death.

The mode of that disobedience (masturbation/withdrawal/whatever) is irrelevant except insofar as it perfects his rebellion.

None of this changes the fundamental evil of contraception, masturbation, and other forms of sexual disorder. The Bible does not provide us with a manual of everything right and wrong; that’s a Protestant innovation and error. The Bible gives us first principles. It is up to ecclesiastical authority (i.e., the Church) to translate those first principles into specific duties on which individuals can act.

They have done so with respect to both contraception and masturbation. What else even needs to be said?

 

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by Hokomai View Post
As I understand it, to accept the Church’s position on contraception you have to believe that 1) things are created by God for a purpose, which is called .natural law’. 2) sex, or the ‘organs of generation’ are created for both procreation and pleasure, and for a reason never fully explained, the two cannot be separated. 3) It is unnatural to intervene by the use of objects or drugs, but not by calculation, mucus measurement and planning, to reduce the chances of conception 4) It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP. 5) Having sex is a really important thing, and therefore this is ‘grave matter’. 6) breaching natural law over 'grave matter is mortally sinful 7) Therefore it is a mortal sin to use ‘artificial birth control’. 8) Therefore wherever the Church can achieve it, ‘artificial’ birth control should be prevented by law from being prescribed or distributed to that purpose to anyone, Catholic or not (as in Ireland until recently).

1. Pulling out is also considered “unnatural” so your point fails. These things are unnatural in that they go against our nature that God not only created, but designed in his image. In today’s society I’m sure pulling out would be considered the “natural” birth control method. Why is this considered natural? Because it requires the least technological advancements of all the options. If condoms could be made using leaves, those would probably also be considered “natural”. Natural law has nothing to do with these definitions of natural however. Natural law is specifically talking about the nature of ourselves that was designed by God in his image and likeness. This nature becomes more and more apparent the more we learn about ourselves and how we function.
2. Answered in 3.
3. Even atheists believe sex is incredibly important haha. Through divine revelation we know that sex is meant to be the ultimate expression of love between spouses in the image of the Trinity. It is the ultimate slap in the face to God to willingly make it anything less.
4. A mortal sin requires something be a grave matter, be done knowingly, and willfully. Doing something wrong that is a grave matter does not immediately imply its a mortal sin at all.
5. Read point 6. Using contraception is a grave matter. That is all you can state about it without specifics.
6. I don’t believe this is true at all. All we are asking is that contraception stop being promoted by our neutral, non-religious government. You can expect Catholics to continue to fight on the political battlefield on this issue until the government stops promoting it.

If you don’t believe in God, and don’t believed we were designed none of this will matter to you. However even if you don’t, you should be able to appreciate the logic behind it and the acceptance of science. Your comments are not surprising however because people that adamantly oppose the Church don’t care about whether their attacks make sense. We are lambasted for denying science, and then in the next breath lambasted for our acceptance of science.

 

[Jonatello]

1. Pulling out is also considered “unnatural” so your point fails. These things are unnatural in that they go against our nature that God not only created, but designed in his image. In today’s society I’m sure pulling out would be considered the “natural” birth control method. Why is this considered natural? Because it requires the least technological advancements of all the options. If condoms could be made using leaves, those would probably also be considered “natural”. Natural law has nothing to do with these definitions of natural however. Natural law is specifically talking about the nature of ourselves that was designed by God in his image and likeness. This nature becomes more and more apparent the more we learn about ourselves and how we function.

How does point #3 fail? Your answer didn’t even address the comparison between NFP and contraception. Where was “pulling out” even mentioned in #3, unless you’re equating NFP to pulling out, which would mean you agree with Hokomai?

 

[fhansen]

Since it’s against the rules to have more than one topic per thread, I was asked to start another to get answers to my questions. We left off in the other thread with my statement:

I also have to add that I have been lurking on these forums for many months, and must say that it has contributed directly to my shrinking faith. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school through 12th grade, but wanted to gain a better understanding, so I started looking here. It’s had the opposite effect.

So please, is there anybody that can kindly break this topic/teaching/truth down for me?

St Basil put it this way:
**If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children. **

St John of the Cross said this:
At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.

If you think the world and yourself are just fine the way they are- if death has no “sting”, if moral evil (sin) doesn’t bother you, then the idea that humankind may in some fundamental way be out of whack with a larger ideal or vision of things, such as the Christian perspective of how things “should be”, may not have much appeal to you.

The manner in which man is said to be disordered-or unjust- is that he does not love the way God intends him to. And this is why mortal sin is always said to be opposed to love, and destructive of it. The manner in which man is said to be capable of overcoming this problem, is by being in communion with God, who is love, according to our faith.

Man was meant to walk with God-and we’re obviously born into this world without such a relationship-which is why faith is said to be the necessary first step; we’re born without even that, let alone love for God. This is all, generally speaking, a process, according to our faith, whereby we become more just-or justified, with Gods grace.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Jonatello #57
Your “sense” equates to “feel”, and Catholics try to think with the mind of the Church, not based on feelings.

Since the late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, Catholics realise that he knows what he is teaching.

Fr Torraco would also have known that Pope Pius XI had taught the truth about Onanism and of the overwhelming agreement on its sinfulness:
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii

(31 December 1930)].
See: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Catholics grow in faith and morals by listening, learning and loving the truth, and acting upon it.

Thanks especially for the link. I have problems trying to find Church interpretation of Scripture. I will keep this one permanently.

 

[Hat4]

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

Correlation does not prove causation.

An explanation may be : people who don’t use contraception are more likely to be of a faith that prohibits divorce.

Hi Spyral,
It’s true that you have to be careful with the outcome of studies and what outside influences can affect them. In this case you need to remember that many people who use contraception are of a faith that prohibits divorce or are personally against it and there are people who use NFP who don’t have such prohibitions. Some of this I’m sure is skewered to an extent because people of faith are way more likely to use NFP but you can’t deny there is a very large difference in the rates of divorce, too much to just be glossed over that easily.

 

[Nate13]

How does point #3 fail? Your answer didn’t even address the comparison between NFP and contraception. Where was “pulling out” even mentioned in #3, unless you’re equating NFP to pulling out, which would mean you agree with Hokomai?

The point was to help explain the fact that opposition to contraception has nothing to do with whether something is “artificial” or societies idea of “unnatural”. Hokomai didn’t mention “pulling out” which was my point. He was specifically trying to accuse us of saying contraception was wrong because it was artificial, as a way to dismiss our Catholic oppositions as simply a matter of hating science. I hardly think anyone would call “pulling out” artificial do you?

 

[Jonatello]

The point was to help explain the fact that opposition to contraception has nothing to do with whether something is “artificial” or societies idea of “unnatural”. Hokomai didn’t mention “pulling out” which was my point. He was specifically trying to accuse us of saying contraception was wrong because it was artificial, as a way to dismiss our Catholic oppositions as simply a matter of hating science. I hardly think anyone would call “pulling out” artificial do you?

i didn’t interpret his #3 that way at all…it seemed fairly obvious to me he was taking issue with the distinction between deliberately avoiding conception via physical shield vs deliberately avoiding it via tactical timing of sexual relations

 

[Abu]

LittleSoldier
I’m very glad that you found the rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html reference helpful.

The Roman Theological Forum is a gold mine of helpful Catholic analysis and truth. At their Living Tradition website:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html
all of the articles are listed and the article on “The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae” (#43) by Fr Brian W Harrison (whom I know) brings out the truth about contraception.

 

[Nate13]

i didn’t interpret his #3 that way at all…it seemed fairly obvious to me he was taking issue with the distinction between deliberately avoiding conception via physical shield vs deliberately avoiding it via tactical timing of sexual relations

1. It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP.

You just needed to get to point 4. He explained exactly what his point was.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here we have a denigration of the fact that “Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church,” who are now ridiculed by Jonatello – how bizarre in a “Catholic” – as well as arrogance towards Pope Pius XI who taught this truth in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is another example of God’s wrath against those who committed grave sins, in this case that of sodomy.

Both are examples of God’s justice, recorded in the Sacred Scriptures as reminders for everyone, ridiculed by those who feel they should know better than Christ’s Church and place their views ahead of reality, yet profess to be “Catholic”.

Oh why did you have to post this? Nobody is ridiculing anyone and the Church encourages us to ask questions. Nobody said they know better than Christ’s Church or placed their views ahead of reality and your last bit about being “Catholic” is just hurtful - even to me.

 

[Nate13]

Oh why did you have to post this? Nobody is ridiculing anyone and the Church encourages us to ask questions. Nobody said they know better than Christ’s Church or placed their views ahead of reality and your last bit about being “Catholic” is just hurtful - even to me.

Ridicule in this sense:

“An absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something.” However some good questions can come in the form of ridicule

 

[Abu]

Thank you Nate.

Ridicule as “the act of deriding or treating with contempt” – the confusion and dissent present today is largely the result of such contempt for Christ through His Magisterium.

We have the belittling of the clear explanation of the late Fr John Torraco who was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network.

Plus the contempt for the affirmation of Pope Pius XI of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in his Encyclical on Marriage!
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

See: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED, Fr Brian W Harrison
“We shall give the last word here to Pope Pius XI, who, in quoting the greatest of the Church Fathers, summed up and reaffirmed this unbroken tradition in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930). After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:

“ ‘Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).’ ”

No wonder some Catholics are in confusion when they prefer their own devices or the decadence of the culture, against the Magisterium. The bottom line is that they may mislead others.

 

[Jonatello]

Thank you Nate.

Ridicule as “the act of deriding or treating with contempt” – the confusion and dissent present today is largely the result of such contempt for Christ through His Magisterium.

We have the belittling of the clear explanation of the late Fr John Torraco who was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network.

Plus the contempt for the affirmation of Pope Pius XI of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in his Encyclical on Marriage!
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’” [Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii

(31 December 1930)].

See: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED, Fr Brian W Harrison
“We shall give the last word here to Pope Pius XI, who, in quoting the greatest of the Church Fathers, summed up and reaffirmed this unbroken tradition in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930). After roundly condemning as intrinsically contrary to the natural moral law all practices which intend to deprive the conjugal act of its procreative power, the Pontiff gave an authoritative interpretation of this biblical text which not only confirms the tradition, but is itself confirmed by impartial and historically well-informed exegesis:

“ ‘Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).’ ”

No wonder some Catholics are in confusion when they prefer their own devices or the decadence of the culture, against the Magisterium. The bottom line is that they may mislead others.

A: i have zero contempt for Christ…i may not have an easy time believing anything and everything that has been said by other various mortal followers of Him, but if Jesus told me something was bad, i’d believe Him.

B: masturbation has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch at all to do with culture. Its automatic. if anything is cultural, its the taboo against masturbation. Human beings will automatically masturbate without any cultural influence, but if you want them to refrain, they must be taught and socialized not to.

C: while it sounds like it here (because of the statements/opinions i’m responding to), i’m not some super invested proponent of masturbation. I’d be okay with learning its bad, but the rationale needs to be more convincing for me to be able to be honest about agreeing. I can’t just squint really hard and decide to agree because the Church tells me to. My mind doesn’t do good with fake belief. So far, everything I’ve heard from people against masturbation just leaves me thinking that its superstition.