Why can't Catholic employers comply w/ contraception mandate?

[mpartyka]

The point is, if we look at earliest tradition, as you suggest, we’ll read things like Soranos of Ephesus early 2nd century treatise “On the Use of Abortifacients and of Measures to Prevent Contraception”. That tradition sees no moral distinction between ‘natural’ methods and medicinal herbs, etc.

If I remember correctly, Augustine lambasted the Manicheans for timing women’s cycles, so even the rhythm method was not considered without fault. Concerning Augustine’s general attitude toward sex, I recall reading a letter he wrote to a fellow priest saying something like, “I lament that in all the towns I have visited I have not found one man who had sex with his wife solely for the purpose of procreation.” And Augustine, it should be understood, was the most liberal of his day concerning sex. All the other priests who wrote concerning sex deemed it a mode of reproduction fit for beasts and something that God only saddled mankind with because of the Fall. Augustine was the only Church Father who posited that sex was how God originally intended mankind to reproduce, only the Fall disordered man’s sexual organs so that they were no longer under his rational control but rather required the attendance of sinful lust to activate them.

If you look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, especially Augustine, their position on sex was actually pretty clear: Married sex for procreation was not sinful; married sex for pleasure was venially sinful but instantly covered under the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage; unmarried sex and contraceptive sex of any kind was mortally sinful.

…many Catholic hospitals will administer emergency contraception in cases of rape, provided that the victim does not test positive for pregnancy. This is not at odds with HV, because the event was not a procreative act of love, but unjust aggression and the women is exercising licit self defense.

Now that is intriguing. Reminds me of Pope Benedict’s suggesting that gay men should use condoms to avoid disease. I guess by the same reasoning it’s okay for rapists to use condoms, but not married couples? Fascinating. But I agree it does fall in line with HV’s teaching, which is basically this: “The only licit form of sexual intercourse between a married couple is the actual attempt to make a baby.” Or at least, that’s what I gather from it. Never actually asked if it’s okay for a woman to receive manual stimulation to orgasm from her husband – anyone know?

 

[mpartyka]

Second of all…please do not attempt to pretend to know what happens with the Catholic faithful…to which I am one…and do not consider it to be just fine.

I’m just referring to statistics that show Catholics and non-Catholics tend to view birth control as permissible at pretty much the same rate (82% and 90%, respectively) according to this 2012 Gallup Poll: gallup.com/poll/154799/Americans-Including-Catholics-Say-Birth-Control-Morally.aspx

Thirdly…it’s nice of you to tell the Catholic Church what their beliefs ought to be. BTW the Church is not the only one against this mandate…focus on the family and Billy Graham are also to name a few.

I’m not saying that Catholics ought to stop opposing the mandate, I just don’t really understand why they do, but this discussion has helped to illuminate the reasons.

Lastly, Catholic employers do not JUST have Catholic employees…so yes providing and paying (either directly or indirectly) is cooperating with something that we believe to be wrong and immoral.

That’s presuming that non-Catholics will behave immorally compared to Catholics, isn’t it? In any case, it seems to me that the price of non-cooperation should be loss of employment for those who misuse the coverage offered, not loss of coverage to those who need it and are willing to play by the rules.

 

[samiam1611]

But I agree it does fall in line with HV’s teaching, which is basically this: “The only licit form of sexual intercourse between a married couple is the actual attempt to make a baby.” Or at least, that’s what I gather from it.

I’d suggest reading it again. I am a pro-contraception antinatalist atheist and even I can see it’s not saying that…

Never actually asked if it’s okay for a woman to receive manual stimulation to orgasm from her husband – anyone know?

It’s perfectly fine as a part of pre- or post-coital activities. It’s not okay if done in place of or independent from sex. Like, if a couple were TTA and did that instead of sex, that would not be okay.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t understand the nature of the “religious freedom” issue that supposedly prevents Catholic employers from complying with the contraception mandate in Obamacare.

Under the original contraception mandate, the conflict was clear: Catholic employers would have been forced to directly cover contraception for their employees in clear violation of Catholic teaching.

But then the mandate was changed: Instead of forcing Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage, the government would instead force the health insurance companies to provide the coverage.

Now, if a particular health insurance company were a Catholic business, I would understand the conflict. But the “religious freedom” complaint still seems to be originating with the Catholic employers, as if their paying for the policy, which the government is mandating must cover contraception, constitutes a breach of morals. I don’t understand that position, given that (1) it’s the health insurance company that is providing the coverage, not the employer, and (2) it’s up to the individual covered by the policy whether or not to actually obtain the contraception.

Consider a similar situation: Many covenience stores sell condoms and other forms of contraception. So if a Catholic shops at Walgreens, for example, that Catholic is giving money to a company that provides immoral services. After all, it’s not like the Catholic can say, “I’ll pay $2 for this bag of chips, but you have to promise me that this $2 won’t go toward the condoms in aisle five.” Rather, that money goes into the pool with all the other money earned by the store, and part of that money will go to buy condoms for aisle five, which perhaps some people (perhaps even people employed by a Catholic organization) will purchase. Does this mean Catholics can never shop at any store that offers contraception (or pornography, or anything else a Catholic should frown upon)? If that’s not the case, and Catholics can indeed purchase goods and services from convenience stores that offer immoral products, what’s the difference between this situation and the health insurance situation?

That’s not similar at all. Walgreens would not be giving away the condoms “for free” so there is no question over whether chip money subsidizes them.

All the “compromise” offers is an accounting gimmick. The insurance company simply wouldn’t include contraceptive services in the text of the contract. The premiums paid, however, go into the same pot that pays for the “free” services. Do you think the insurance company CEO is going to pay for it out of his pocket? There would at least have to be a complete financial break between the insurance company and whoever is supplying the contraceptive funding.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

The problem really isnt even with buying it, it s that Catholic organizations dont want to PROVIDE it, and the Gov shouldn’t be able to force them.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I’m just referring to statistics that show Catholics and non-Catholics tend to view birth control as permissible at pretty much the same rate (82% and 90%, respectively) according to this 2012 Gallup Poll: gallup.com/poll/154799/Americans-Including-Catholics-Say-Birth-Control-Morally.aspx

I’m not saying that Catholics ought to stop opposing the mandate, I just don’t really understand why they do, but this discussion has helped to illuminate the reasons.

That’s presuming that non-Catholics will behave immorally compared to Catholics, isn’t it? In any case, it seems to me that the price of non-cooperation should be loss of employment for those who misuse the coverage offered, not loss of coverage to those who need it and are willing to play by the rules.

Non-Catholics don’t believe it to be immoral…we do. Point is many Catholic institutions already provide coverage now. Catholic institutions will NOT be able to force their non-Catholics employees to not use birth control…difference is now they have to PAY for it…forcing us to cooperate in something we believe to be an evil.

 

[mpartyka]

That’s not similar at all. Walgreens would not be giving away the condoms “for free” so there is no question over whether chip money subsidizes them.

But the money you spend on chips goes into the pool of money that Walgreens uses to purchase products, including condoms, for the store, so essentially your money is going toward other people’s condom use, presuming people buy condoms there.

 

[mpartyka]

Non-Catholics don’t believe it to be immoral…we do.

Well, just be aware that according to the survey only 1 in 5 Catholics actually believe it to be immoral (unless you’re saying that only 1 in 5 Catholics actually are Catholics).

 

[Spider42]

If I remember correctly, Augustine lambasted the Manicheans for timing women’s cycles, so even the rhythm method was not considered without fault.

Correct. But Augustine was also a sex addict who had trouble accepting personal responsibility for it. We are all sinners, we all have weaknesses.

St. Paul advocated abstinence, because he was convinced that the second coming was imminent. He also participated in the torture and murder of early Christians. Should his writings be removed from the New Testament?

I
Now that is intriguing. Reminds me of Pope Benedict’s suggesting that gay men should use condoms to avoid disease. I guess by the same reasoning it’s okay for rapists to use condoms, but not married couples? Fascinating.

Really, it’s pretty simple if you start with the premise that moral values are consistently applied. Your first two examples, condoms can be a step towards grace, actually taking steps to protect others, even people you are otherwise hurting. Not a great step, but a movement towards less harm.

Couples in the Sacrament of Marriage have received that sacrament voluntarily. They asked the Church for it, it was not forced on them. In their case, moving away from contraception would be more moral, because of our beliefs about Sacrament and the human family.

In the one case, the Church is saying ‘hurt others less’, the other ‘honor the Sacrament you requested more’.

But I agree it does fall in line with HV’s teaching, which is basically this: “The only licit form of sexual intercourse between a married couple is the actual attempt to make a baby.” Or at least, that’s what I gather from it.

Actually, the context is human love, but it is a challenging text seldom approached without preconceptions, even by most Catholics.

Never actually asked if it’s okay for a woman to receive manual stimulation to orgasm from her husband – anyone know?

If their general intent is to have married intercourse - even just for pleasure, yes. The same would apply to oral sex. Or, if you are so inclined, sock puppets.

It’s also OK for Christians to honor the Two Commandments of Love and converse with each other accordingly.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Well, just be aware that according to the survey only 1 in 5 Catholics actually believe it to be immoral (unless you’re saying that only 1 in 5 Catholics actually are Catholics).

First of all…I never trust surveys like that. Many people will identify as Catholic but are not practicing Catholics.

2nd…Our Church teaches it is immoral. That is what counts…especially for following our faith. So, now we are not allowed to follow our faith because of a survey? Its our concience…this is the same consience that has us feeding the poor…so a Catholic organization that feeds the poor is “allowed” to follow their concience in that respect but not in others? Since when does the government get to decide? And get to decide the tenets of our faith?

Even scarier is these decisions about what is immortant to cover is made by a panel that is accountable to no one! that’s right…they do not have to answer to anyone and can’t be sued. So…contraception in…prostrate screening for men out…and no one can call them on it.

 

[Sarcelle]

Well, just be aware that according to the survey only 1 in 5 Catholics actually believe it to be immoral (unless you’re saying that only 1 in 5 Catholics actually are Catholics).

Let’s assume that the statistic quoted above is true. This does not change the fact that the Church teaches that artificial birth control is an object evil. Church doctrines are not decided by majority vote. Catholics who wish to call themselves faithful will have to heed Church doctrines.

 

[Spider42]

First of all…I never trust surveys like that. Many people will identify as Catholic but are not practicing Catholics.

Catholics have to be careful in how we address this sort of thing. We have an obligation to the truth (CCC 2471-2) which extends to the reputation of others (CCC 2476-9), an obligation to avoid judgement of others (CCC 1716-18), and a personal obligation to humility placed on us at baptism (CCC 2554) because it is the foundation of prayer (CCC 2559).

It is perfectly reasonable to state, as fact, that huge numbers of Catholics are in dissent with the Mother Church on the morality and use of contraception. The question then becomes, how to respond in light of our many obligations?

Do we take an adversarial stance against measurable truth? Do we argue that only people in perfect communion with the Church are ‘real’ Catholics?

Both those approaches potentially put our own salvation in peril. It is probably much easier to accept the obvious, we are Catholic. We believe in an apostolic Church, not morality through majority consensus. In the Gospels we can see that the first apostles struggled in mastering the teachings of Christ. So it is with the apostles that have followed, in every age.

For the first 1300 years or so of the Church the big problem facing the Church was not contraception or abortion, but infanticide. Literally, murdering and/or abandoning children post birth. The church spread to the gentiles. If Pauline Christianity had not flourished, there would probably be no Christianity today, but those cultures largely had no respect for human life in the form of infants and small children. Today, very few people, in our out of the Church, would not hear the call of their moral conscience to see an infant buried alive or abandoned as trash.

So, the Church relentlessly taught what was right, we strongly resisted, but gradually we moved closer and closer to the proper natural law.

The same is true with Marriage and marital relations. It is easy to mock St. Augustine, but he did promote monogamy, the practice of the Romans, but with Christian chastity. Family structures did then evolve, and largely, if not haltingly, for the better. We split with the Eastern Church over it’s rigid idea of sex only for procreation and realized that marital sex has two important purposes, procreation and unity. The odd characterization of HV above notwithstanding, what the pope acknowledged was that there are licit reasons to avoid or delay children inside of marriage. That’s why NFP is licit, it allows unity to still be pursued without adding or subtracting from the natural sexual act.

Sex and procreation are powerful urges and it is perfectly understandable how, say, married Catholics would know the unity by personal experience and treasure it, but not fully understand the boundaries that best serve the Sacrament. It doesn’t make them evil, just misguided and all to fallible sinners doing their best - like every other Catholic! We know this is true, because we proclaim it in unison at almost every Mass (“Lord I am not worthy to receive you…”)

Pax Christi

 

[Spider42]

Catholics who wish to call themselves faithful will have to heed Church doctrines.

It’s not that simple. The present Vicar of Christ has given his judgement that artificial contraception can be a “positive step” towards morality in certain, largely tragic, circumstances. Before we start declaring who is and who is not a faithful Catholic, we best heed the lesson of Luke 18:9-14 and the many ways it is reiterated in the Universal Catechism.

Peace

 

[SonCatcher]

But the money you spend on chips goes into the pool of money that Walgreens uses to purchase products, including condoms, for the store, so essentially your money is going toward other people’s condom use, presuming people buy condoms there.

That’s not how it works in accounting. They address P&L by department and by product. Chips and birth control are definitely separate.

Stores don’t view a single pool of money that somehow grows and they guess as to what is profitable. They track products closely for profitability. If there are 10,000 products in the store, there are 10,000 “pools” of money. True, they use past profits to try new products every once in a while. However, if the first delivery doesn’t make money, there won’t be a second.

I know. I write the software that enables them to do that (not Walgreens, but other retailers)

 

[mpartyka]

St. Paul advocated abstinence, because he was convinced that the second coming was imminent.

Well, isn’t that supposed to be our attitude as well? It’s not like the second coming is further away now than it was then. (And again, St. Paul did not advocate abstinence within marriage.)

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Catholics have to be careful in how we address this sort of thing. We have an obligation to the truth (CCC 2471-2) which extends to the reputation of others (CCC 2476-9), an obligation to avoid judgement of others (CCC 1716-18), and a personal obligation to humility placed on us at baptism (CCC 2554) because it is the foundation of prayer (CCC 2559).

It is perfectly reasonable to state, as fact, that huge numbers of Catholics are in dissent with the Mother Church on the morality and use of contraception. The question then becomes, how to respond in light of our many obligations?

Do we take an adversarial stance against measurable truth? Do we argue that only people in perfect communion with the Church are ‘real’ Catholics?

Both those approaches potentially put our own salvation in peril. It is probably much easier to accept the obvious, we are Catholic. We believe in an apostolic Church, not morality through majority consensus. In the Gospels we can see that the first apostles struggled in mastering the teachings of Christ. So it is with the apostles that have followed, in every age.

For the first 1300 years or so of the Church the big problem facing the Church was not contraception or abortion, but infanticide. Literally, murdering and/or abandoning children post birth. The church spread to the gentiles. If Pauline Christianity had not flourished, there would probably be no Christianity today, but those cultures largely had no respect for human life in the form of infants and small children. Today, very few people, in our out of the Church, would not hear the call of their moral conscience to see an infant buried alive or abandoned as trash.

So, the Church relentlessly taught what was right, we strongly resisted, but gradually we moved closer and closer to the proper natural law.

The same is true with Marriage and marital relations. It is easy to mock St. Augustine, but he did promote monogamy, the practice of the Romans, but with Christian chastity. Family structures did then evolve, and largely, if not haltingly, for the better. We split with the Eastern Church over it’s rigid idea of sex only for procreation and realized that marital sex has two important purposes, procreation and unity. The odd characterization of HV above notwithstanding, what the pope acknowledged was that there are licit reasons to avoid or delay children inside of marriage. That’s why NFP is licit, it allows unity to still be pursued without adding or subtracting from the natural sexual act.

Sex and procreation are powerful urges and it is perfectly understandable how, say, married Catholics would know the unity by personal experience and treasure it, but not fully understand the boundaries that best serve the Sacrament. It doesn’t make them evil, just misguided and all to fallible sinners doing their best - like every other Catholic! We know this is true, because we proclaim it in unison at almost every Mass (“Lord I am not worthy to receive you…”)

Pax Christi

Please do not twist my words… What I meant was there are those who were baptized Catholics as babies and have nothing else. Even though they do not go to Mass (or for many anywhere else) they will identify as Catholics.

I myself was called for a poll…I identified as Catholic…and when they asked further questions such as how often I went to Mass…and I said daily…they had no further questions. Polls as these can be twisted to select the group that will support their view. They are not reliable.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

It’s not that simple. The present Vicar of Christ has given his judgement that artificial contraception can be a “positive step” towards morality in certain, largely tragic, circumstances. Before we start declaring who is and who is not a faithful Catholic, we best heed the lesson of Luke 18:9-14 and the many ways it is reiterated in the Universal Catechism.

Peace

Lets not twist Holy Fathers words and lets take it in the WHOLE context…shall we

 

[Spider42]

Please do not twist my words… What I meant was there are those who were baptized Catholics as babies and have nothing else. Even though they do not go to Mass (or for many anywhere else) they will identify as Catholics.

To be clear, I had no intent to assign anything to you personally. You brought up two subjects, never trusting polls and the possibility that self identified Catholics might not be practicing Catholics. In response, I pointed out that those are both lines of discussion in which all Christians, and especially Catholics, have important responsibilities.

That said, it appears I understood your meaning correctly. We have no more right to judge those Catholics than anyone else. Consider the Pharisee and the Publican from Luke, or the judgements of the Son of Man in Matthew 25. In the latter case, both the saved and the damned were surprised at their status.

We might think of such people as being poor doctrinal Catholics, but then our responsibility is to CCC 2478:

To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.”

The quote in the paragraph is from St. Ignatius of Loyola, but echoes a lesson from the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps their faith has been sorely tested, or they are concerned about feeling welcome. We don’t know if we don’t hear them out in love. And, we need to correct and help only in a spirit of Love and the true intent of their salvation (the same message I have been echoing).

Lets not twist Holy Fathers words and lets take it in the WHOLE context…shall we

Could you be more clear on how, precisely, I am ‘twisting’ the teaching? I was quite careful to quantify that it was narrowly applied.

I, myself, am under an Oath of Fealty, so your accusation is not a minor matter.

If it helps clarify, my point was quite simple. The post I replied to referred to the teaching in absolute terms. The Vicar of Christ has expressed the opinion that it is not a moral absolute.

In, say, politics, hyperbole and absolutes are the norm. But in presenting theology, Catholics have a different standard:

Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html #27

I realize that part of Catholic Answers popularity rests with it’s incredibly simplistic representation of the faith (example, collapsing Rome’s list of 11 non negotiable moral issues in voting to 5, with only two being complete overlaps), but the faith is a coherent whole:

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html #4

The Doctrinal Note above was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope Benedict XVI gave the list in #4 special weight in Sacramentum Caritatis. Pope Benedict also placed special weight on love being the only true and proper foundation for expressing our faith in his first encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est. My primary point is, literally, the first sentence of the quote above. Our defense of a teaching cannot be at the expense of the Two Commandments of Love and teachings must not be distorted and extended for the sake of an argument, lest we undermine them.

Peace

 

[Spider42]

Well, isn’t that supposed to be our attitude as well? It’s not like the second coming is further away now than it was then. (And again, St. Paul did not advocate abstinence within marriage.)

Yes, we should live each day as if judgement is imminent. But you are still twisting St. Paul. He advised marriage only as a poor substitute for abstinence, and his understanding of marriage was radically different from what we understand today.

But I can’t help but shake the feeling that you are not here for dialog. You appear to be only skimming messages and looking quick retorts. I would love to be proved wrong (in the spirit of CCC 2478 which I quoted above), so let me restart the conversation.

I was born and raised Catholic, but I have experienced my own road to Damascus twice. First, when I baptized a dear friend just before he bled to death in my arms in a mud hole in Vietnam. Second as I recovered my faith after losing my wife and our three young children to a drunk driver. I’ve spent the last three decades working with the poor and studying and teaching theology and scripture.

The point is not that I am a better or worse person than anyone else. I’m a sinner and fail God regularly just like everyone else here. The point is, I have lived through war and I now work with children who have had to sell their bodies to eat so you are not going to shock me with quips about sex acts. I also love Holy Scripture and Church writings enough that I have learned to read them in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, so you aren’t going to ‘catch’ me in some stereotypical ‘Catholic biblical ignorance’.

If you would truly like to understand the Catholic position on contraception, why we had a rift with the Eastern Orthodox church over our stance that marital sex has two purposes, not just one, or the elevation of the importance of the love and unity purpose in Casti Connubii, or even the explanation of why Humanae Vitae claims that there are licit reasons for married couples to avoid additional children or control the timing of children, we can have that discussion.

On the other hand, if your primary purpose is to try to annoy and enrage lay Catholics, you are wasting your time with me. All I can offer you is my thoughts and prayers.

Pax Christi

 

[mpartyka]

He advised marriage only as a poor substitute for abstinence…

I strongly disagree with this assessment of Paul’s positions concerning marriage. Let’s look at the relevant passage:

From 1 Cor 7 – It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt…But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one, so let him walk…Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none…But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain…

Let’s look at some portions of the above:

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” – This is basic Christian sexual morality in a nutshell. Not having sex is fine. But if you’re going to have sex, you’d better have it with your opposite-sex spouse, because all other sex is fornication.

“Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband…Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time…lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.” – Married couples are supposed to have sex. If either the husband or the wife has sexual needs, it is the obligation of the other to meet those needs. Abstinence within marriage should only be temporary.

“…I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that…as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one, so let him walk…” – Both sexual desire and the lack of it are gifts of God, and it is appropriate for a person to enter into the lifestyle that suits the level of sexual desire that God gave him/her. If you are someone who has a paltry sex drive, stay a virgin. If you are someone who has a powerful sex drive, get married and have all the sex you need.

“But I would have you to be without solicitude…to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.” – The virgin life is preferable to the married life only insofaras it permits a believer to focus wholly on God and not have to attend to the needs of a family.

About the only portion of the above passage I see that supports your view is this: “This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none…” But I take this merely to mean that “get all the sex you need” does not mean “get all the sex you want” – i.e., if you are married, then by all means ensure that your sexual needs are fulfilled, but go beyond that and you are getting into the area of indulgence when there are more pressing spiritual matters at hand.

…and his understanding of marriage was radically different from what we understand today.

If Paul’s understanding of marriage is radically different from ours, who is at fault – he or we?

But I can’t help but shake the feeling that you are not here for dialog. You appear to be only skimming messages and looking quick retorts.

Well, I feel like my original question was answered, so now I’m just picking at the things people say here and there that interest me.