Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Chrono13]

@Chrono13
In terms of the Onan story how can you quote laws that were not in place at that point? The Onan story occurred in Genesis and your saying they were bound by laws that were not even established yet? The only law there was too follow were the couple direct commands given by God, and natural law.

Hi, Nate. Nice to read you again.

I know what you mean. The story of Onan has been written long before Deuteronomy. However, as you can see in Abu’s posts, many Catholic scholars ignore this, and my argument was simply following their logic. If my point doesn’t work, they blow up as well.

It’s not without some weight, however. Even without God’s direct command, it is seen from context that Tamar would at least disapprove of coitus interruptus if it was by default wrong. Note that most translations agree there were more then one coitus, and each time it was interrupted. And she would have to do something the first time that happened.

 

[Bookcat]

First off I do not know that “most” Catholics (those who have not moved away from Faith) Ignore Humane Vitae. Even the various proposed stats for a single country in the world have been shown to be skewed etc…And as I think Mark Twain I believe noted there are two kinds of lies…dame lies and statistics (or something to that effect).

I am not posting though here to discuss such…rather…

But having said that.

I wanted to pass along an interesting recent article archden.org/index.cfm/ID/7909

 

[Nate13]

Hi, Nate. Nice to read you again.

I know what you mean. The story of Onan has been written long before Deuteronomy. However, as you can see in Abu’s posts, many Catholic scholars ignore this, and my argument was simply following their logic. If my point doesn’t work, they blow up as well.

It’s not without some weight, however. Even without God’s direct command, it is seen from context that Tamar would at least disapprove of coitus interruptus if it was by default wrong. Note that most translations agree there were more then one coitus, and each time it was interrupted. And she would have to do something the first time that happened.

I think its apparent that at that time women didn’t exactly have a lot of free say in what went on. The Bible does not remark on what Tamar thought of it either way so I would say its presumptuous to the extreme to claim since nothing is said she must not have seen anything wrong with it. There is no reason to look at the future laws that were laid out at all in my opinion.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Its clear what Onan did wrong was something that he did, not something he didn’t do.

Things he didn’t do:

1. Didn’t fulfill his duty
2. Didn’t help raise offspring for his brother

Things he did do:

1. Sleep with Tamar
2. Contracept
3. You could possibly argue its referring to the totality of what happened here and not just specifically to contracepting. You could never claim contracepting was ok by this line of thinking though. At best you could claim its too muddled to know for sure whether not helping Tamar make a baby in general was what was wrong, or just his method of going about it.

This entire passage though is really just a pointer towards the real proof, which is natural law. Even if we could all agree that what was wrong here was Onan spilling his seed we would have to figure out why God found that to be wrong. The Bible also says having sex with a menstruating woman is wrong as well, but we don’t take that at face value. We look to why they required this and whether it was based in moral Truth. The Bible says homosexual acts are wrong, and this was determined to be based in moral Truth and natural law. There is little doubt for you that natural law does exist correct?

Thus I would argue the proof is not in what we read in the Onan story but rather what it points too which is natural law.

 

[Chrono13]

First off I do not know that “most” Catholics (those who have not moved away from Faith) Ignore Humane Vitae. Even the various proposed stats for a single country in the world have been shown to be skewed etc…And as I think Mark Twain I believe noted there are two kinds of lies…dame lies and statistics (or something to that effect).

I am not posting though here to discuss such…rather…

But having said that.

I wanted to pass along an interesting recent article archden.org/index.cfm/ID/7909

I agree about statistics

As for article, the part when Weigel says sexual revolution encourages sexual predators for date rape puts the shadow on most of his previous (positive) points.

 

[Chrono13]

I think its apparent that at that time women didn’t exactly have a lot of free say in what went on. The Bible does not remark on what Tamar thought of it either way so I would say its presumptuous to the extreme to claim since nothing is said she must not have seen anything wrong with it. There is no reason to look at the future laws that were laid out at all in my opinion.

But still, women had their role, and their duty was to keep it with their will and small power they had. If throwing the semen was wrong, Tamar would at least object to it, as she would object Onan-for example-in worship of idol.

If duty of this, to our culture strange, couple was to have a child, Tamar would certainly object contraception. However, she didn’t mind, altough there were several intercourses with it.

Its clear what Onan did wrong was something that he did, not something he didn’t do.

Things he didn’t do:

1. Didn’t fulfill his duty
2. Didn’t help raise offspring for his brother

Things he did do:

1. Sleep with Tamar
2. Contracept
3. You could possibly argue its referring to the totality of what happened here and not just specifically to contracepting. You could never claim contracepting was ok by this line of thinking though. At best you could claim its too muddled to know for sure whether not giving Tamar a child in general was what was wrong, or just his method of going about it.

That’s the matter of perception. For example, you say that Onan *didn’t *fulfill his duty, while I might say he *did *commit a treason of his brother.

If Tamar did not object contraception, altough it was her duty to beget a child, and was not punished for her participation in such acts, this means blame is not on act itself, but on it’s backgrond (which is why Onan was punished, and she was spared).

Tamar even didn’t report spilling of the seed to elders, altough that would relieve her of being sentenced to celibacy.

 

[Nate13]

But still, women had their role, and their duty was to keep it with their will and small power they had. If throwing the semen was wrong, Tamar would at least object to it, as she would object Onan-for example-in worship of idol.

If duty of this, to our culture strange, couple was to have a child, Tamar would certainly object contraception. However, she didn’t mind, altough there were several intercourses with it.

That’s the matter of perception. For example, you say that Onan *didn’t *fulfill his duty, while I might say he *did *commit a treason of his brother.

If Tamar did not object contraception, altough it was her duty to beget a child, and was not punished for her participation in such acts, this means blame is not on act itself, but on it’s backgrond (which is why Onan was punished, and she was spared).

Tamar even didn’t report spilling of the seed to elders, altough that would relieve her of being sentenced to celibacy.

Can you actually quote this passage your referring to from Deuteronomy again? I’m not familiar with it and I don’t like defending against ghosts lol.

 

[Nate13]

nvm I found it:

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

This only speaks towards her having to report if he won’t marry her.

Duty of brother in law = marriage

Onan fulfilled that duty. There was nothing for her to report by the law she probably knew nothing about anyways.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

We don’t know that most really do… at least, those who go to mass regularly.

The media likes to throw around these “98%” numbers or whatever.

 

[remjsmom76]

I think a lot of people choose to ignore it because they are either IGNORANT of the teaching…or they are just not that educated on it… and I also think in todays society people are taught to be in control …and following the churchs teaching gives the control to “fate” and so one might feel like they loose that control.

I can personally attest that before I was sterilized, our sex life was more…PASSIONATE before, than it is now. There is something that for sure changes when a spouse is “fixed”. I personally think its because sex has now become something that is just there. Its like a child wanting something they cant have…they appreciate it more when its limited to them…rather than when its just available all the time. It doesn’t loose the real meaning of it. I think that’s why the church teaches what it does. It doesn’t want couples to loose that “importance” for each other.

As for the ignorant part of my comment, I think the church itself does not teach it why as it should. My oldest daughter has been raised to know the church inside and out, its rules, why it does this and why it puts that in place. She is in the process of being confirmed…CCD classes…yet the classes she takes, BORES HER TO DEATH! She texts me, she texts her friends, shes BORED…why because they are not teaching anything that has anything to do about being CONFIRMED! They are not teaching anything as to why we believe what we do. They go over the rosary, they go over the Lords Prayer…if the church cries that our young are being misled its because the church does not teach their Catechists to teach what should be taught…and therefore breading ignorant Catholics, who are in-turn, not knowledgeable about what we do believe in…and raising kids the same way, its a a cycle. For example, my cousins daughter went to a catholic school up until her freshmen year of high school. We were talking about certain issues…one was abortion. She gave us her insight to it…and we taught her why what she thought was wrong…I mean catholic school since kinder…she should have known why its wrong. She didnt know any of the rules we were talking about she didnt know anything we told her that the church teaches…we were kind of dumb founded… here is my daughter, 3 yrs younger than her…and knows SO MUCH…about the church and its teachings and we have our cousin…about to graduate high school…and has NO CLUE what her religion is all about?

But I also think there are those who just don’t want to give up their control…those who have to know that things are going their way because they are the ones choosing when, where, and how…and I think those are the same ones that want to have something to blame or someone to blame when things do not go their way.

Why people ignore the Church’s Teachings…depends on the person. They may not have had the education some have, like in my daughters case, we have taught her since she could understand and talk. But, there are many other reasons…maybe its not convenient to them…everyone is different… like they say “Every head is a different world” and trying to wonder why is like trying to figure out the universe.

Thank you for your reply here. It’s nice to have an experiential reply from an NFP user without the sanctimonious tone I’ve received in other replies. I’ll be sure to research what you’ve said further!

I still think it’s a good question to ask: why do so many Catholics ignore the Church’s teachings?

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

FNR,

Thanks for your positive and supportive remarks to etmom. In the past I hated the Catholic Church’s teachings on life. I thought that a celibate Catholic priest has no business telling me how I’m suppossed to interact sexually with my spouse. How could he possibly know anything about it? It was only later, after much prayer and study, that I realized I’m to offer up my sexuality (for a temporary moment) for the love of both God and my spouse. This teaching comes from men who actually know a lot more about this than I do, because they have offered up all of their sexuality for love of God. See Matthew 19:10-12.

 

[Chrono13]

nvm I found it:

This only speaks towards her having to report if he won’t marry her.

Duty of brother in law = marriage

Onan fulfilled that duty. There was nothing for her to report by the law she probably knew nothing about anyways.

Let’s broad the Bible citation a bit.
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her,"his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.”
That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.*
Deuteronomy 25:5- 25:10

As you can see, the whole point why a man must marry his deceased brother’s wife is continuation of family line. Something Jews of the OT cared a lot about (I guess much more then “Natural law”). The firstborn would be counted as the son of deceased person, and the line would continue.

If deceased brother had a heir, marriage would not be needed.

Since there was no sexual life without marriage, a man had to marry a woman in order to fulfill his duty towards his brother. Marriage is just a step in system of keeping the bloodline flowing.

Duty of brother-in-law: to marry, and to give heir to his brother.

If one marries a woman but does something in order to prevent levirate duty, he preformed sin. This seems to be Onan’s case.

 

[Nate13]

Let’s broad the Bible citation a bit.
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her,"his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.”
That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.*
Deuteronomy 25:5- 25:10

As you can see, the whole point why a man must marry his deceased brother’s wife is continuation of family line. Something Jews of the OT cared a lot about (I guess much more then “Natural law”). The firstborn would be counted as the son of deceased person, and the line would continue.

If deceased brother had a heir, marriage would not be needed.

Since there was no sexual life without marriage, a man had to marry a woman in order to fulfill his duty towards his brother. Marriage is just a step in system of keeping the bloodline flowing.

Duty of brother-in-law: to marry, and to give heir to his brother.

If one marries a woman but does something in order to prevent levirate duty, he preformed sin. This seems to be Onan’s case.

When the woman is to go and say “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” it then responds with that meaning “I do not want to marry her,”.

You are reading into this what is not there while also assuming Tamar even knew anything about these laws that probably had not been created yet. Next youll be quoting from the New Testament and holding her to that standard. The only law we can assume they were held accountable to is natural law.

 

[diggit03]

I’m so happy to have come across this thread! I’m 24 and getting married in May and am really looking into NFP so I can explain all this to my fiance, and practice it, and stand up a little stronger to my well-meaning mom and various other women who think I don’t know what I’m getting myself into (although they call themselves Catholic, but I will not judge). You all are truly a blessing and an encouragement- there are very few true, passionate, logical, relevant, up-to-date, modern Catholics where I live right now. Thank your for confirming for me that I’m not crazy for wanting to use only NFP “in this day and age”, or for sticking to the CCC like I am sw85. I’m am definitely not a person weak in my faith- I’ve just been surrounded by too many objections recently. Thank you. A hundred times. May Christ triumph.

 

[Chrono13]

When the woman is to go and say “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” it then responds with that meaning “I do not want to marry her,”.

You are reading into this what is not there while also assuming Tamar even knew anything about these laws that probably had not been created yet. Next youll be quoting from the New Testament and holding her to that standard. The only law we can assume they were held accountable to is natural law.

Sorry, but the line is quite clear. A man does not carry his brother’s name in Israel by marrying his widow, but generating a heir which will continue the line. To generate a heir, one needs to have sexual relation, and this can not be done without marriage.

A man who would marry such woman, and then refuse to have relations with her in order to avoid his duty would be attacked by elders on the same grounds as the one who would simply refuse to marry her.

 

[Nate13]

Sorry, but the line is quite clear. A man does not carry his brother’s name in Israel by marrying his widow, but generating a heir which will continue the line. To generate a heir, one needs to have sexual relation, and this can not be done without marriage.

A man who would marry such woman, and then refuse to have relations with her in order to avoid his duty would be attacked by elders on the same grounds as the one who would simply refuse to marry her.

Alright let me write down your argument in full here as I’m seeing it:

Your argument is based on the fact that the Bible does not mention anything about Tamar bringing a complaint to the elders, based on a law she probably knew nothing about, over something they did not directly specify she was supposed to bring a complaint before them about. Do you think the group of elders she was supposed to bring her complaint before even existed?

Yeah…real firm ground there. Making an assertion based on the Bibles silence and 3 or 4 guesses

 

[Chrono13]

Alright let me write down your argument in full here as I’m seeing it:

Your argument is based on the fact that the Bible does not mention anything about Tamar bringing a complaint to the elders, based on a law she probably knew nothing about, over something they did not directly specify she was supposed to bring a complaint before them about. Do you think the group of elders she was supposed to bring her complaint before even existed?

Yeah…real firm ground there. Making an assertion based on the Bibles silence

Even if elders did not exist, Tamar did not report spilling of the seed to Judah, leading him in belief she is to blame for Onan’s death (Genesis 38:11). This is why she had to remain celibate after Onan’s death. Such fate could easily be avoided by reporting Onan’s usage of contraception. This was not done- leading to idea that Onan’s sin was his desire to stop the line of his brother.

Tamar was not reacting to multiple acts of contraception, altough it was expected from her to beget a child. Also, no penalty was given to her, neither by God Almighty nor Judah. She even didn’t blame herself for such acts.

Anyway, the ground is more firm then mainstream Catholics would dare to admit Please, take in account that it was Abu first who connected story of Onan with Deuteronomy. Quoting people who are quite wise in field of theology.

 

[Chrono13]

I’m so happy to have come across this thread! I’m 24 and getting married in May and am really looking into NFP so I can explain all this to my fiance, and practice it, and stand up a little stronger to my well-meaning mom and various other women who think I don’t know what I’m getting myself into (although they call themselves Catholic, but I will not judge). You all are truly a blessing and an encouragement- there are very few true, passionate, logical, relevant, up-to-date, modern Catholics where I live right now. Thank your for confirming for me that I’m not crazy for wanting to use only NFP “in this day and age”, or for sticking to the CCC like I am sw85. I’m am definitely not a person weak in my faith- I’ve just been surrounded by too many objections recently. Thank you. A hundred times. May Christ triumph.

It’s nice to have such young and devoted reader. I wish you God’s blessings in your life and marriage. A word of advice- try to communicate NFP with fiance before the wedding. It is fair to both of you.

 

[Nate13]

Even if elders did not exist, Tamar did not report spilling of the seed to Judah, leading him in belief she is to blame for Onan’s death (Genesis 38:11). This is why she had to remain celibate after Onan’s death. Such fate could easily be avoided by reporting Onan’s usage of contraception. This was not done- leading to idea that Onan’s sin was his desire to stop the line of his brother.

Lol now your even deviating from your own story. How can you claim she was supposed to tell Judah if there were no elders around? Is that caveat in writing somewhere or another blank you decided to fill with your best guess? You don’t know what Tamar did or did not do because it doesn’t say or even leave a hint.

Tamar was not reacting to multiple acts of contraception, although it was expected from her to beget a child. Also, no penalty was given to her, neither by God Almighty nor Judah. She even didn’t blame herself for such acts.

False. You don’t know any of this. Again arguing from silence. You filled the blanks with what best fits your story and called it fact.

Anyway, the ground is more firm then mainstream Catholics would dare to admit Please, take in account that it was Abu first who connected story of Onan with Deuteronomy. Quoting people who are quite wise in field of theology.

Your entire argument is based on silence. I could argue that the Bible is silent on me murdering someone with a gun, so that must be ok Arguing from silence is incredibly weak especially when the silence is from a woman in Genesis. You can’t even argue that Tamar never reported it to someone since it doesn’t say anything lol. For all you know she did exactly what you claim she was supposed to do.

I’m going to ask you again. Do you believe in natural law and if you do not, on what basis do you consider homosexual acts to be wrong if you do so?

 

[Chrono13]

Lol now your even deviating from your own story. How can you claim she was supposed to tell Judah if there were no elders around? Is that caveat in writing somewhere or another blank you decided to fill with your best guess? You don’t know what Tamar did or did not do because it doesn’t say or even leave a hint.

I don’t know what you mean. It’s quite obvious from the narrative that Judah was in charge of Tamar’s fate and that he had authority of certain eldership in the case . And it is very obvious that Tamar did not report spilling of the seed as an issue which killed Onan (otherwise, Judah would not be afraid for his siblings, as mentioned in Genesis 38:11). It’s not my guessing, but common sense.

False. You don’t know any of this. Again arguing from silence. You filled the blanks with what best fits your story and called it fact.

Not really. I am simply pursuing objective logic. Tamar was engaged in multiple contraceptive intercourses at time when she was required to beget a child. She did not see such relation a threat to her levirate duty. She did not connect contraception with death of Onan. She did not accuse Onan for practicing coitus interruptus in front of Judah, altough it would help her a lot.

There are no gaps here Only factual data.

Your entire argument is based on silence. I could argue that the Bible is silent on me murdering someone with a gun, so that must be ok Arguing from silence is incredibly weak especially when the silence is from a woman in Genesis. You can’t even argue that Tamar never reported it to someone since it doesn’t say anything lol. For all you know she did exactly what you claim she was supposed to do.

You have a woman practicing contraception, at a time when she is supposed to beget a child. And she goes with it without consequence.

That means a lot of things. Biblical quietness is not one of them.

I’m going to ask you again. Do you believe in natural law and if you do not, on what basis do you consider homosexual acts to be wrong if you do so?

To be honest, I am skeptical on the idea of “Natural law” as ethical approach. What is nature and how it works greatly depends on culture of the interpretator. I mean, Church Fathers and Humanae Vitae greatly differ in interpretation of nature, NFP being the case point.

Homosexuality is sexual perversion which harms soul according to Christian mysticism.

 

[Nate13]

To be honest, I am skeptical on the idea of “Natural law” as ethical approach. What is nature and how it works greatly depends on culture of the interpretator. I mean, Church Fathers and Humanae Vitae greatly differ in interpretation of nature, NFP being the case point.

Homosexuality is sexual perversion which harms soul according to Christian mysticism.

Church Fathers and Humane Vitae differed because their understanding of the human body differed. The principles were applied based on the knowledge of the body they had at the time.

Natural law is mentioned here in the Bible:

Rom 2:12-16
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

and JPII expounded in great detail in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor which is a must read if you haven’t read it yet.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

In particular you should read sections 46-53 if you haven’t.

Homosexuality is sexual perversion which harms soul according to Christian mysticism.

How can you call it a perversion if you have not declared the condition inherent to human nature yet? You can’t call it a perversion without calling support from natural law. The only way you can claim homosexual acts are wrong is if you are a Bible alone Christian (and even then its just up for interpretation) or you call on the principle of natural law.