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

[zz912]

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:

The Holy Father was NOT saying that the use of contraception in some cases was ok. What he was discussing was the instance where a prostitute infected with a disease, if they used a condom to protect their clients, that intention could be the first step to caring about the welfare of others, could be the first step to opening themselves up to being aware of God’s grace. It is not the use of the condom that is licit or okay. But just the intention to begin to start caring about others (not wanting them to get infected) is what he was discussing.

 

[choose_to_love]

@spider #35: But, fertility awareness/NFP is not contraception. There is no act to sterilize, nor is the fertility of the couple affected by any action they take themselves.

Birth regulation, the “point” per your post of NFP, is moral, given adequate serious reasons. The means of achieving that, of course, are not all moral.

I am not sure what you mean by your reference to Dt. 25; it seems it only supports the understanding of Gn. 38 as opposing contraception, since the brother who refuses his duty does not incur a capital offense like Onan. Natural or unnatural really has nothing to do with it, except as one is discussing the ‘nature’ of the marital act itself, not the distinction between coitus interruptus versus condoms, OCs, etc.

Not sure I understand your reference to Soranus, either.

St. Augustine is always, IMO, a tough subject for discussion boards. There is a lot of nuance and translation issues. Anyway, I do not think one can fairly read a general condemnation of fertility awareness into his condemnation of the Manichees, who, if memory serves, taught that pregnancy ‘imprisoned’ a soul in the (evil) material world. He was not addressing licit means of birth regulation whatsoever.

All that being said, St. Aug. is not the Magisterium, either.

Do you have any other examples, besides NFP, of a contraceptive method being approved by the Church?

Also, I do not agree that St. Paul had a different view of marriage - -what about Eph. 5?

 

[mpartyka]

St. Augustine is always, IMO, a tough subject for discussion boards.

Can’t recall if I brought this up before, but Augustine’s position on sex w/o procreation in mind is pretty clear:

From newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm:

Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage…For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault…to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault…But he allows, as matter of “pardon,” that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it…For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust…But an advance beyond moderation in demanding the due of either sex, for the reasons which I have stated above, is allowed to married persons as matter of pardon.

In summary, sex w/o procreation in mind is a venial sin for married couples that is covered by the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[PublicH]

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

I have read and read and read and still do not see or know where to look for the scriptures condemning contraceptives - please list them or the doctrines here, so that I may study the actual statements. Thank you

 

[PublicH]

Can’t recall if I brought this up before, but Augustine’s position on sex w/o procreation in mind is pretty clear:

From newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm:

In summary, sex w/o procreation in mind is a venial sin for married couples that is covered by the Sacrament of Marriage.

So, with this is mind, why does the Catholic religion teach that it is a sin for a woman to refuse sex with her husband? It does not state when or why, just that it is a sin to refuse.

 

[TimothyH]

I have read and read and read and still do not see or know where to look for the scriptures condemning contraceptives - please list them or the doctrines here, so that I may study the actual statements. Thank you

When a woman was widowed without a male child, the brother of the dead man was supposed to raise up offspring so that his brother’s name and lineage would be perpetuated. God specified the punishment for not raising up an heir to your dead brother. The punishment was public humiliation.

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off. (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Onan refused to raise an heir to his brother but he was not punished with public humiliation but rather with death.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. (Genesis 38:8-10)

God cannot specify one punishment for a crime (public humiliation) and then hand out a harsher punishment (death) for that same crime. That would make God a liar and God does not lie. This shows that Onan’s crime was not failure to raise an heir for his dead brother but rather for wasting his seed.

He wasted his seed and it earned him death. This shows that masturbation and contraception are both “mortal” sins.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

So, with this is mind, why does the Catholic religion teach that it is a sin for a woman to refuse sex with her husband? It does not state when or why, just that it is a sin to refuse.

It is not about refusing sex but about treating your husband or wife’s body as if it is your own body, with reverence.

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. he husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5)

-Tim-

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a good explanation:

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Peace,
Ed

 

[bsroufek]

If a man asked you for $50 so he could buy a gun to kill his wife, would you give him
the money?

That’s the same thing as giving money to insurance companies which will fund the culture
of death.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **