Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[Rau]

Not a very convincing argument. He just glibly says ‘This leads us to conclude’. It does no such thing as far as I can tell.

If you read the verse from the Bible yourself (always a good idea to make your own judgment), it is clear what the punishment is for - it was not for spilling his seed, it was for not doing his duty by the brother’s wife. This story is in no way a prohibition of contraception

Why the death penalty when that is far beyond the prescribed punishment for failing the duty?

You assert that taking the woman to bed and ‘contracepting’ their sex act adds nothing to his sin - that it adds nothing to his refusal to obey the law? Why did he simply not stay away from the woman - decline to go to her? For that, he would have been punished as the law prescribed - by humiliation.

It seems evident that he did more than refuse the law - and he received a punishment far greater than the law prescribed. Why?

God punished Onan for “what he did” - not for the reason he did it - but for “what he did” - his act in that moment.

 

[Burdock]

The Catholic Church does not have “views” – it teaches the reality on faith and on morals through dogmas and doctrines as She has been founded by the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, to teach the fullness of Truth.

She has authorized the Bible, with the New Testament written by Her apostles and disciples. She also has Christ’s authority and mandate to teach what is right and what is wrong that is not in the Bible, for Christ gave us His Church not a Book.

“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)].
Jesus mentions nothing about contraception.

 

[oneofmany]

I struggle with the idea if we miss one Mass we go to hell. That means a lot of my Catholic family members will go to hell. They are good people they just don’t take their faith that seriously anymore.

 

[Burdock]

I struggle with the idea if we miss one Mass we go to hell. That means a lot of my Catholic family members will go to hell. They are good people they just don’t take their faith that seriously anymore.

I struggled with that one as well. Especially if we were away from home, my husband doesnt share my faith, and it would cause tension if I was trying to find out where the nearest Catholic church was. I think jesus would understand, its just something else the church has made up.

 

[oneofmany]

I struggled with that one as well. Especially if we were away from home, my husband doesnt share my faith, and it would cause tension if I was trying to find out where the nearest Catholic church was. I think jesus would understand, its just something else the church has made up.

Well it comes from the Ten Commandants to keep holy the Lord’s day so it isn’t just something the Church “made up” it’s God’s words.

It’s too bad your husband is that way. My sister is married to a non-Catholic and he has never had a problem with her going to church but we don’t need to stress too much if we can’t find a church when on vacation. Jesus does understand that or when we are sick, my family members don’t even try anymore to be a part of the Church. Maybe on Holidays only.

 

[Burdock]

The Catholic Church does not have “views” – it teaches the reality on faith and on morals through dogmas and doctrines as She has been founded by the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, to teach the fullness of Truth.

She has authorized the Bible, with the New Testament written by Her apostles and disciples. She also has Christ’s authority and mandate to teach what is right and what is wrong that is not in the Bible, for Christ gave us His Church not a Book.

“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)].
Jesus mentions nothing about contraception.

 

[Rau]

I struggled with that one as well. Especially if we were away from home, my husband doesnt share my faith, and it would cause tension if I was trying to find out where the nearest Catholic church was. I think jesus would understand, its just something else the church has made up.

It would cause tension?

Circumstances might readily excuse mass attendance. But we are asked to take the obligation seriously.

 

[Rau]

Jesus mentions nothing about contraception.

The Church brings you the Bible, including things that Jesus has said, the Acts of his apostles and many other books. The same Church continues the teaching role of Jesus and the apostles today. Are you saying that the parts where the Church tells you Jesus said something are relevant, and reliable, and the other parts the Church brings you can be ignored? If you can’t trust most of what the Church brings you, why trust any part?

 

[Bookcat]

Sure the scriptures can not be exhaustive about everything - especially anything that are only available in modern times.

But non-pharmaceutical contraceptives must have been available for many centuries, including the time that Jesus was around. So you would expect some mention, if it was supposedly so wrong.

As for the Onan episode, it sounds like he was being condemned for not doing his duty by his brother’s wife. Not really related to contraception.

It seems to me that the Church’s teaching regarding contraceptions seems to be based on very thin Biblical background.

I noted above such can be seen too in the New Testament with Paul condemning “pharmakeia". You read too fast.

But the fact that such was included in the New Testament - does not mean that if something was not included it was accepted or not condemned. Such is not the nature of the New Testament.

Evil was condemned all over the place (in general too) in the New Testament as evil - and to be avoided.

And many evils were around that were seen as such by the Church…but were not mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

The “exposure of newborn children to die” that is not directly mentioned in the New Testament -but was very much a practice and very much condemned by the Church (early Christians actually took them into their homes as their own when they could). The New Testament is not meant as a Moral Theology Textbook (though yes it part of the very foundation of all Theology).

Or for example “Gladiator Games” (and were big widespread entertainment) were very much condemned but one does not mention of them in Sacred Scriptures. Rather they just did not happen to get mentioned. One though finds such condemned in other early Christian texts.

.

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus mentions nothing about contraception.

Jesus never mentioned lots of things…

Infanticide for example.

The lack of mention does not meant they where ok.

Some thing so and it was widespread in that time among the dominate Roman Culture.

He founded a Church and gave the Holy Spirit to the Church.

He did not give out a dictionary of morals…

 

[openmind77]

I noted above such can be seen too in the New Testament with Paul condemning “pharmakeia". You read too fast.

But the fact that such was included in the New Testament - does not mean that if something was not included it was accepted or not condemned. Such is not the nature of the New Testament.

Evil was condemned all over the place (in general too) in the New Testament as evil - and to be avoided.

And many evils were around that were seen as such by the Church…but were not mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

The “exposure of newborn children to die” that is not directly mentioned in the New Testament -but was very much a practice and very much condemned by the Church (early Christians actually took them into their homes as their own when they could). The New Testament is not meant as a Moral Theology Textbook (though yes it part of the very foundation of all Theology).

Or for example “Gladiator Games” (and were big widespread entertainment) were very much condemned but one does not mention of them in Sacred Scriptures. Rather they just did not happen to get mentioned. One though finds such condemned in other early Christian texts.

.

The last two - letting babies die or letting fighters kill each other for sport obviously have Biblical backing against killing. And there is support for condemning these acts by generally accepted moral values of society.

It is when you have unusual prohibitions like against contraception that we need to look for specific passages that support them. And there is no such mention in the new Testament (does ‘pharmakeia’ cover condoms made at home?). And prohibitions in the Old Testament are suspect any way because in that book all sorts of weird stuff is prohibited (like leavened bread).

 

[Bookcat]

The last two - letting babies die or letting fighters kill each other for sport obviously have Biblical backing against killing. And there is support for condemning these acts by generally accepted moral values of society.

It is when you have unusual prohibitions like against contraception that we need to look for specific passages that support them. And there is no such mention in the new Testament (does ‘pharmakeia’ cover condoms made at home?). And prohibitions in the Old Testament are suspect any way because in that book all sorts of weird stuff is prohibited (like leavened bread).

The be fruitful and multiply and the great importance of children are all through the pages of the Bible…

To the other part of the first - actually no- the surrounding dominate Roman Culture supported those practices…they were wide spread…the thing “to do”. It was Jews and Christians who rejected such. As with contraception.

As I noted pharmakeia yes can be said to refer to contraception.

Again your treating the New Testament as some Moral Theology Textbooks or dictionary - it is not intended as such.

As to the Old Testament - I will set aside that comment for it simply is not coming from an understanding of Divine Revelation at that point in History and the Jewish Law at the time (which I understand as a Hindu you likely do not have - as I would not have in terms of your culture). But suffice it to say that the condemnation of Contraception is part of the natural moral law.

 

[openmind77]

The be fruitful and multiply and the great importance of children are all through the pages of the Bible…

To the other part of the first - actually no- the surrounding dominate Roman Culture supported those practices…they were wide spread…the thing “to do”. It was Jews and Christians who rejected such. As with contraception.

As I noted pharmakeia yes can be said to refer to contraception.

Actually pharnakeia referred to ‘witchcraft’ (potions etc) which Paul was advising against, nothing to do with contraception.

… But suffice it to say that the condemnation of Contraception is part of the natural moral law.

Contraception is part of the ‘Natural Moral Law’? That is ridiculous!

 

[Bookcat]

Contraception is part of the ‘Natural Moral Law’? That is ridiculous!

Not ridiculous.

Good summaries from the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

416. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

**417. Is such a law perceived by everyone?
**
1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

---

495. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

496. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

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

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

But I do not want to keep going back and forth over these things…my time is limited.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually pharnakeia referred to ‘witchcraft’ (potions etc) which Paul was advising against, nothing to do with contraception.

Right (the first part) and such were used for contraception and abortion. It can yes include contraception. Paul is talking there in his lists of grave sins and such potions etc where among such grave sins - and one finds it again in the Book of Revelation.

The use of the same term pharmakeia in a second century (100’s) writing by a doctor to refer to potions used for contraception and abortion. (pointed out by Dr. Marshall - he address the issue I understand at more length in his book on Paul).

HERE is more from another: catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/contraceptive-references-in-the-bible.html

The 6th and 7th (r 7th and 8th really for the first one is highlighted) paragraphs get into Pharmakeia -there the Priest notes that Scholars link it to contraception.

(that article is part of a whole series …see the bottom for the other parts)

But again I do not want to keep going back and forth over these things…my time is limited…especially today. I bid you a splendid day!

 

[openmind77]

Right (the first part) and such were used for contraception and abortion. It can yes include contraception. Paul is talking there in his lists of grave sins and such potions etc where among such grave sins - and one finds it again in the Book of Revelation.

The use of the same term pharmakeia in a second century (100’s) writing by a doctor to refer to potions used for contraception and abortion. (pointed out by Dr. Marshall - he address the issue I understand at more length in his book on Paul).

HERE is more from another: catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/contraceptive-references-in-the-bible.html

The 6th and 7th (r 7th and 8th really for the first one is highlighted) paragraphs get into Pharmakeia -there the Priest notes that Scholars link it to contraception.

(that article is part of a whole series …see the bottom for the other parts)

But again I do not want to keep going back and forth over these things…my time is limited…especially today. I bid you a splendid day!

You are right - there is no point in going back and forth with these things.

However, I find all these arguments unconvincing. Condoms have nothing to do with potions or abortion, so according to the pharmakeia thing, condoms are just fine. And we all know Pope Benedict’s view on contraception, so reading his Compendium does not add anything new.

So as far I can see, Biblical support for prohibition on contraception is very thin, if not non-existent.

 

[Rau]

You are right - there is no point in going back and forth with these things.

However, I find all these arguments unconvincing. Condoms have nothing to do with potions or abortion, so according to the pharmakeia thing, condoms are just fine. And we all know Pope Benedict’s view on contraception, so reading his Compendium does not add anything new.

So as far I can see, Biblical support for prohibition on contraception is very thin, if not non-existent.

At least you now agree that there is biblical support. See also post #507.

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #506
it is clear what the punishment is for - it was not for spilling his seed, it was for not doing his duty by the brother’s wife. This story is in no way a prohibition of contraception

False again, as the penalty imposed by Mosaic Law was not a death sentence upon the guilty brother but public humiliation – a far cry from execution, so such repeated claims are useless.

‘Charles D Provan “lists 99 Protestant theologians who taught against Onanism, including actual quotations from 66 of these. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley were strongly opposed to unnatural birth control, with Luther calling it a form of sodomy…We have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900s, NOT ONE!” ’
[Cited by John Kippley in *Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius Press, 1993, p 295,296; from The Bible and Birth Control, Zimmer Printing, 1989, p 63].

#522
So as far I can see, Biblical support for prohibition on contraception is very thin, if not non-existent.

Failing to understand that the Christ, God the Son, founded His Church to teach, sanctify and rule and that She gave us the Bible and only She has the fullness of truth is at the root of the errors so often repeated without any basis.

The teaching against Onanism by Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930), in post #500 is conclusive.

 

[Magdalenaa]

I accept all of them. I have no problem accepting them. The problem is actually doing them. We are all fallen after all and nobody said that to be a saint was easy.

I actually find the teaching on contraception very reasonable. They used to tell us that contraception (the pill mainly) will reduce abortions, however it more than multiplied it as it multiplied promiscuity. Pope Paul VI was absolutely right.

General lowering of moral standards
A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
Government coercion in reproductive matters.

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian’s marriage lasted 72 days. Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don’t think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we’re talking about this right now).

Read more: businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz3ZgRuJkqA

 

[Bookcat]

So as far I can see, Biblical support for prohibition on contraception is very thin, if not non-existent.

I understand your a Hindu. But you seemed to have picked up some Protestant ideas in looking at the Bible.

The approach of seeking what your seeking there is a rather novel approach to the Sacred Scriptures not how the Church has approached Sacred Scriptures for 2000 years.

Though the evil of Contraception is found in Sacred Scriptures - Sacred Scriptures are not meant to be the only source of Teaching nor are they a systematic work of Theology or Theological Dictionary!

And as noted not only in Sacred Scripture but also in other early Christian works…it is not a new problem (though new ways of committing the sin have been devised)

Here are some sources on Revelation…including Sacred Scripture.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm

[Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2](Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2)

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm