Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[Red_Beard]

9. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor's."

"Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This Commandment deals with the right relation to physical goods and the battle for purity. CCC 2514-2527

"2519 The "pure in heart" are promised that they will see God face to face and be like him. Purity of heart is the precondition of the vision of God. Even now it enables us to see according to God, to accept others as "neighbors"; it lets us perceive the human body - ours and our neighbor's - as a temple of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of divine beauty."

"2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God's grace he will prevail

- by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

- by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God's will in everything;

- by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God's commandments: "Appearance arouses yearning in fools";

- by prayer:

I thought that continence arose from one's own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you."

Contraception violates the ninth Commandment by taking the ends of marriage, primarily the procreation of children and secondarily the unity of spouses, and reversing them. It perceives the human body as a tool to manipulated, barricaded, suppressed, and mutilated to prevent conception. It abandons the use of chastity, and intends something other than God's intention for the use of marriage and sexuality.


The Tenth Commandment ("You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's") may be violated by contraception if the couple does not have a serious reason for avoiding conception, but instead seek their own comfort selfishly.


There is it. It is an awful lot, I hope it helps. I'm also working on an epic answer to SUB's other topics, but we'll see how that goes.

God bless,

Mrs. Red Beard

[BruceK]

Take it from me Red Beard going into the forum to directly engage Sub is the equivalent of putting you hand in the blender. But that having said I still occassionally spar with Sub, I thought I share you the latest exchange I had w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite:

BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: "The Church .... teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life" (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to "defy the plan and holy will of God" (Hv 13). <<

Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not "inseparably connected". HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God's will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.



BK >> To act otherwise is to "defy the plan and holy will of God" (Hv 13). <<



Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God's will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.



BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-"a conjugal act imposed on a spouse." It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<



Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.



BK >> He goes on to argue that man "does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life." <<



Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man "does not have power over his generative faculties as such.." NFP would not work.



BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:

1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends

2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end



So obviously there's nothing "morally neutral" about ABC. <<



Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.



BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC .. would .. be immoral. <<



You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:

1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God's will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.

2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV's sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.

As you can see for yourself he's using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals your more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K

[BruceK]

Originally Posted by BruceK

Rd Beard take from me. going into the forum to directly engage Sub is the equivalent of putting you hand in the blender. But that having said I still occassionally spar with Sub, I thought I share you the latest exchange I had w.r.t.the Natural Law argument of Humanae Vite:

BK: Natural Law is clearly brought up in Humanae Vitae in several of its passages: "The Church .... teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life" (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to "defy the plan and holy will of God" (Hv 13). <<
Sub: If this is the basis in natural law for prohibiting ABC, then this discussion is over since both statements (HV11 and HV13) are demonstrably false. God created non-human animals so that each sexual act is ordained in itself to reproduction. (Bonobos are an exception that proves the rule) But, since God created humans so that procreation is possible for only 25% of the fertility cycle, we know that God created humans so that each conjugal act is not ordained in itself to the procreating of human life. Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51) The ultimate end, the propagation of the species, has two separate proximate ends - procreation and unification. And God created humans so that the two proximate ends are not "inseparably connected". HV refutes its own assertion in HV11 when it sanctions NFP, because if each conjugal act remain[ed] ordained in itself to the procreating of human life NFP would not work. The teaching in HV11 that you quote is false. It is not a teaching from natural law, but rather, it is a rejection of God's will (natural law) as expressed through His act of creation. Note that NFP works by excluding procreation from conjugal acts thus violating HV11.



BK >> To act otherwise is to "defy the plan and holy will of God" (Hv 13). <<

Sub: We have seen above that it is HV11 that defies the plan and holy will of God. Since both HV11 and HV13 contradict God's will (natural law) and are false, they cannot serve as a valid basis for conjugal morality.



BK >> In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-"a conjugal act imposed on a spouse." It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, ABC ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. <<


Sub: As we see above, it is HV that ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life.



BK >> He goes on to argue that man "does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life." <<

Sub: We know that God created humans so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. So this statement like others from HV that you quote is false. Note also that if man "does not have power over his generative faculties as such.." NFP would not work.



BK >> If a couple have sex with artificial birth control they do two wrong things:

1. they artificially prevent the sexual act achieving one of its natural ends

2. they deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end



So obviously there's nothing "morally neutral" about ABC. <<

Sub: This is an assertion based on demonstrably false premises from HV, and hence is not a valid conclusion. Note however, that since those practicing NFP deliberately choose to prevent the sexual act achieving its natural end [procreation], your statement condemns their practice of NFP as wrong.



BK >> And finally, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. Therefore ABC .. would .. be immoral. <<


You are now returning to a natural law argument. But, note two things:

1. Since God created conjugal intercourse to serve two separate ends in support of a higher, ultimate end, it is congruent with God's will to exclude one end (procreation) in achieving the second end (unification) in support of the ultimate end (the propagation of the species). This is precisely the purpose of NFP, which purpose is sanctioned by HV.

2. If, according to natural law, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed, then NFP is condemned by natural law since its very purpose is to exclude (reject) procreation from conjugal acts. And HV's sanction of NFP contradicts natural law.

As you can see for yourself he's using the same flawed and flimsey arguments and the same dishonest tactics. So you (or anyone else here) want to give your 2 cents and quick rebuttals you're more than welcome. In Christ Bruce K

[Red_Beard]

Sub: "Each conjugal act is ordained in itself (ultimate end) to the propagation of the human species. (See JP II L&R pg 51)"

Love and Responsibility pg 52-53: "The proper end of the sexual urge is the existence of the species Homo, its continuation (procreatio), and the love of persons, between man and woman, is shaped, channeled one might say, by that purpose and formed from the material it provides."

Sub has misquoted L&R and drawn his own faulty conclusions.

L&R pg 57: "This habit of confusing the order of existence with the biological order, or rather allowing the second to obscure the first, is part of the generalized empiricism with seems to weigh so heavily on the mind of modern man, and particularly on modern intellectuals, and makes it particularly difficult for them to understand the principles on which Catholic sexual morality is based.. . .The sexual urge owes its objective importance to its connection with the divine work of creation of which we have been speaking, and this importance vanishes almost completely if our way of thinking is inspired only by the biological order of nature.. . . It is otherwise with the 'order of nature', which means the totality of the cosmic relationships that arise among really existing entities. It is therefore the order of existence, and the laws which govern it have their foundation in Him, Who is the unfailing source of that existence, in God the Creator."

The middle portions that I omitted are very good and help the explanation, but it is rather long. More later. . . I hope.

~ Mrs. Red Beard

[BruceK]

Red Beard, here's the latest from my procontraception protagonsist, apparently he taking Providentissimus Deusand St. Augustine's quote out of context and obviously doesn't understand HV.

But, what is the significance of your accurate posts? In his Encyclical Letter: ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,(Providentiisimus Deus) under the heading, The Authority of Holy Scripture; Modern Criticism; Physical Science, Pope Leo XIII writes:



There can never indeed be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist [scientist], as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, not to make rash assertion, or to assert what is not known as known. [52] If dissention should arise between them,here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: -- Whatever they can readily demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these scriptures of ours, that is Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so. [53]<o></o>



You have already posted that: "God created humans so that the two ends of sexual intercourse are not inseparably connected". But instead of accepting that truth that HV12's "inseparable connection" is false "without the smallest hesitation", and St. Augustine's rule as cited by Pope Leo XII in his encyclical, you choose to lie and deny your own accurate posts. Note also that since HV12's "inseparable connection" is false, JP II's Theology of the Body which claims to demonstrate from Genesis that the "inseparable connection" is divine revelation is also false. A monstrous piece of sophistry.


It apears the sophistry is on his part, not mine. Am I right? Help or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Red_Beard]

Once again Sub is showing his lack of reading comprehension skills. He twists every text he touches as he bends them to support his position. It's like when Protestants read the Bible.

His comprehension skills are so low that he can read the Church's definition of "unitive" and "procreative" a million times and still not come to an understanding of their meanings. He will always insist in arguing based on his own definitions.
If you are using the word "kitty" to describe the pot in a poker game, it would be stupid for me to argue that a "kitty" has four legs and purrs. This isn't so much a matter of "right" or "wrong" as both uses of "kitty" are valid in their respective contexts. It is a matter of him willfully misunderstanding and scandalously misrepresenting the Church.
Faith and Reason will never contradict each other. Theology and science, if grounded in the truth, will never have grounds to quarrel. The conjugal act, procreation, and union, not merely biological acts that "pass or fail." Sex is not just a biological or scientific reality that we must defer to the judgments of those who are more qualified. The ends don't justify means. The will, the act, and the end must all be weighed; both material and spiritual, because man is both.

We've gone over this repeatedly and he repeatedly misrepresents the basic terms we are using. No dialogue is possible with a man intent on willfully mistranslating.
All Christian churches until 1930 upheld the evil of contraception. They were either all wrong or all right. Since 1930, the Catholic Church is the only church to continue teaching that contraception is intrinsically disordered and evil. We are either still wrong or are still right. The moral law, like the God it reflects, is unchanging.

If the Church is, wrong on the matter of contraception, a matter that she has taught infallibly through the ordinary Magisterium for 2000 years, then Her infallibility means nothing. All other teachings and beliefs are suspect. And all of Christendom was wrong on a basic issue of faith and morals for 1900 years. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to take a position that depends on calling Christ a liar.

God bless,
Mrs. & Mr. Red Beard

[Red_Beard]

"Note also that since HV12's "inseparable connection" is false, JP II's Theology of the Body which claims to demonstrate from Genesis that the "inseparable connection" is divine revelation is also false."

Life would be simpler if sub refrained from using words that he has proven himself unwilling or incapable of understanding, such as "inseparable connection."

This is like trying to explain calculus to a man who just keeps shouting "2 + 2 = 5!"

[christianlove]

Ok, I will just put this out there, because I think this is the perfect place for it. Because it is so long, I will put it in 8 submissions. I wrote this in search of answers for myself and my wife, of ten years, with whom I have three children.

On Coitus Interruptus: Procreative and Unitive Processes of the Matrimonial Trinity
Introduction

The beliefs of the Catholic Church (CC) are held dear in my heart as my own faith has recently been renewed. I rely on the Rock that is the CC to lift my spirit and give me guidance; however, this instrument of the one true God methodically works in her own way as I serendipitously work in mine. Though the Church is better than me in knowledge and holiness, the Lord God and His Spirit are at work in my heart as they are in all the members of the Church, thus wholly becoming the living body of Christ. The expressions and attitudes of the Church, of which the CC is a part of, are to be fully acknowledged by any and all denominations as the true beliefs of these faithful who are ingrained in the Love of Christ so as not to hold down their gifts of charity and genuineness by old law standards that are entrenched in sacred scriptures and interpreted in as many ways as there are readers. After all, the Holy Spirit sends His message to each unique mind as the wisdom which is needed in that particular life and that particular moment. The fire of the Holy Spirit that contagiously spreads around the world has been lovingly and freely poured out for this very reason.

“Today not one [denomination] stands with CC to maintain the ancient Christian faith on [the] issue of conception and sterilization 1.” As is pertains to heterosexual married couples who have united themselves together to become one flesh through the sacrament of marriage. The CC finds itself in the particular position with a sense of infallibility by Papal consent and considers its strong hold on this concept to be in some way a revelation of its confirmation by the Holy Spirit. However, does withstanding the test of time by refusing to bend and sway to the needs of the faithful make it true? Please, hold the argument that “the so-called ‘individual conscience’ argument amounts to ‘individual disobedience 2,’” because such an argument goes against the teachings of Christ: brotherly love and understanding. There is nothing in this world from a human being, even with grace, that is infallible. The CC claims infallibility on this subject, yet admits that even the Pope “has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position” 4. What advantage does anyone have over another? I tell you that the Holy Spirit is not given to any one person or group of any “higher status” at the loss to those considered “lesser.” After all, God will determine what is considered clean and what is not (Acts 10:15) 3, and no man, despite what he has been ordained here on earth, is solely given the power of God. “It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error 2”; however, the Lord’s gifts are uniquely poured out on all true Christians as fruits of the Spirit to use as He sees fit (1 Cor 12:7-11) 4, and no one holds a monopoly on the Spirit of God! Furthermore, God continues to lift up the poor and meek and bless the humble with His divine spiritual gifts (Luke 1:51-53) 5. The ignorant, the sinners, the vagabond have always been lifted up by God to walk in His name and lead his way to salvation. Not once did any prominent priest or church of old or new covenant enlighten the chosen people. When a believer tells another believer how he feels about God and his relationship with Him, the other should not argue; certainly one who feels the Holy Spirit in his heart knows how he feels better than another.

1. http://www.catholic.com/library/Cont...rilization.asp
2. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papa...allibility.asp
3. Acts 10:15
4. 1 Cor 12:7-11
5. Luke 1:51-53

[christianlove]

In this way I write this letter, but I am not attempting to argue with the beliefs or doctrines of the CC; however, I am trying, through prayer and deep reflection, to decipher how its mandates pertains to me as a Catholic by choice and a Christian in heart. The stance of the CC is that “both forms [of birth control] mentioned in the Bible (coitus interruptus and sterilization) are condemned without exception3.” I agree there is no exception to that which is condemned by God’s law, but to take a few scripture passages and make a law with no exception is harsh. Furthermore, who made this God’s law? God’s law was given to Moses, there were ten, and preventing generative processes is not in violation of any one of them. If one is to claim that physically preventing the procreative process is considered murder, then I would insist that that person insure that all of his generative seed/egg becomes a life lest he/she be a murderer millions of times over! This is not the way God made us. For God, seed and egg are not required. He puts life where life will be: consider the ultimate example of his incarnate Word, our salvation, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb. He forms the life where and when He desires, and then we carry it and nurture it for His glory.
Sin Against Natural Law
Others may proclaim it is a form of adultery since not creating life while having sex violates a natural law and is opposed to the principle of Marriage. Truly, the root of the entire subject on the regulation of birth is the belief that preventing the procreative means of communion between a man and a woman “is a violation of natural law 3.” Pope John Paul II stated that natural law is based on our nature as rational beings (Veritatis Splendor 42) 6. According to St. Thomas, the natural law is ‘nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law’ (Old Catholic Encyclopedia I-II, Q. xciv) 7. As mentioned above, there are only Ten Commandments in the Old Testament and these serve as the basis for the synthesis of the natural law. Therefore, there should be some explanation through human and moral reasoning to explain why disallowing conception is in violation to God’s will and destiny for man if we are to call it a sin.

6. Veritatis Splendor 42
7. Old Catholic Encyclopedia I-II, Q. xciv

[christianlove]

Let me form a position by way of my natural reasoning as a logical author inspired with Spirit, given the perception and authority to reflect by the Creator, and in search of truth. The unitive aspect of intercourse, that is the bond a man and woman shared together during intimacy, should be fulfilled as much as the procreative aspects and one or the other will often be frustrated. Yet the frustration of the procreative function alone is considered a sin by the CC. What if the unitive aspect is frustrated, is this not just as much a violation of the Sacrament of Matrimony? By natural law, it is right for a man and woman to want to have intercourse for unitive purposes as much as for procreative purposes. By this reasoning, when a spouse refuses to have intercourse for any reason despite the needs or desires of the other to be unified, there is frustration of the unitive function of intercourse, but this is not a sin. Likewise then, there is nothing abnormal or unnatural about not inseminating a woman when she is fertile in order to avoid a conception thereby frustrating the procreative function; using the same logic, this is not a sin but simply a fact of life. I tell you it is difficult to always satisfy both. Indeed, only when truly the devoted man and a woman decide to make life can they share both aspects. In that moment of beautiful union and fulfillment of a complete embodiment of the unitive and procreative function of intercourse, a blessing is bestowed upon the couple as a gift of life. This life is made from God and He gives responsibility to the parents.
Despite the rational concepts above, the violation of the procreative means is clearly defined as a sin by the CC. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines sin as “an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as ‘an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law. Sin is an offense against God: ‘against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight (Ps 51:4) 8.’ Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods (Gen 3:5) 9," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God 10." In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation (Philippians 2:6-9) 11 (CCC1849 and CCC1850) 12.”
The letter of Galatians is particularly accomplished on listing sin as it pertains to the flesh: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21) 13." However, I take fault with anyone who interprets these effects as straightforward. Consider as an example, “anger” as a sin that cause one to not inherit the Kingdom of God. Did Jesus not become angry when he found the tax collectors in the temple (John 2:14-16) 14? Anger itself is not a sin! So the act of “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like” are to be taken into consideration with the outcome and harm done to brotherly love by such. These are just human emotions and shortcomings that only become sin and cause the loss of salvation when there it becomes a failure of the “genuine love for God and neighbor (CCC1849) 12?”

8. Ps 51:4
9. Gen 3:5
10. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 14,28:PL 41,436.
11. Philippians 2:6-9
12. CCC1849 and CCC1850

[christianlove]

So then, let us consider only one specific and most natural form of birth control (besides abstinence) that is condemned by the Church, coitus interruptus, and if it stands up to the designation of sin. I have already stated above that there is no violation of “reason, truth, and right consciousness” when two people, united as one flesh by marriage, agree to “frustrate” the unitive or procreative process of intercourse. They are reasonable and intelligent creatures created by God and make decisions together as one as the truth and right conscience they have defined in their own personal church called: the family. So then it is just the opposite of “[wounding] the nature of man and [injuring] human solidarity,” and the ability of the married couple to make these decision to affect their life creates a natural function for them and solidarity in their own personal church: the family. By all means, let us support families!
Finally I ask for anyone to explain to me how the process of making love with one made flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone and in God’s own image, despite frustration of procreative processes, can in anyway cause a “failure in genuine love for God and neighbor” while fulfilling a unitive purpose. Certainly, there is no “perverse attachment to certain goods” in this case of mutual consenting sexual intercourse with a spouse. Why must the process of self-giving sex handed over freely to each other through the sanctity of marriage be made so complicated?
What is more frustrating is that coitus interruptus is considered a mortal sin! Therefore, this unitive process, withholding the procreative aspect, performed between two human being who share the God given blessing of love which makes then one flesh is believed to “…destroy charity in the heart [of the couple] by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him (CCC1855) 15.” I cannot understand how the embracing of two halves to become one, in the presence and blessing of God, whether there is procreation as a means or not, destroys love and desire to be God’s child. There is no malice or intent to give up God for sex. God has given us this ability to love each other. Why does wasting seed/egg make it a violation of His law?
The Word and Law of God
Let us turn then to the Word of God himself. We seek the wisdom of God and want to follow His will. Indeed much prayer and time is spend praising Him and letting ourselves go to Him so that His will can be done on earth through us by following His law. This is the purpose of Man (Eccles 12:13) 16. We turn to the Church in all the wisdom she has gained over the millenniums, through her close relationship with God, and her union with Christ as his bride, being guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Truth as it is proclaimed through the Sacred Scripture, Gospel, and New Testament. The Church holds the right to interpret the scriptures because Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, has opened her mind to their truths (Luke 24:45) 17. However, it is also true that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) 18. Furthermore, let us remind ourselves of who the Church is. It is the Body of Christ, which is to say those people who are made brothers and sisters by their union with the Father as his heirs through Christ (Romans 8:17) 19. So then the Church, the followers of Christ, interprets the Scriptures with the open mind given to us out of love from Christ as the Holy Spirit. We are feeling with our hearts and want to understand how God wants to use us to fulfill His ultimate plan here on earth. It is not for us to know any of the reasons why, but just to do what He asks of us. The CC is a sturdy and awesome foundation for the Church to take root and develop ourselves in holiness and worship, but certainly does not determine how the Holy Spirit moves in individuals. Only God does that.

13. Gal 5:19-21
14. John 2:14-16
15. CCC1855
16. Eccles 12:13
17. Luke 24:45
18. 2 Peter 1:20
19. Romans 8:17

[christianlove]

I will interpret the Scriptures as the LORD my God has given me the power and wisdom to do so for His glory and according to natural law. In this way I have examined the CC’s interpretations. Gen. 38:9-10 20 is presented as the most condemning passage for coitus interruptus according to the CC1.
Gen. 38:9-10 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
In this way, it is felt that we should not withdraw during ejaculation because this angers God as did Onan; however, was is that Onan spilled his seed or because he was greedy and conceited by not wanting to give a child to someone else that would give him no benefit. What is the worse sin? Further on in this chapter, we are told of the story of Onan’s father, Judah sleeping with this woman, his daughter-in-law Tamar, who he was tricked to believe was a prostitute (Gen. 38:15) 21. This is a good example of the treacherous sins of adultery, incest, and prostitution, each of which are detestable to God and are mortal sins (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 18:10, Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, Deut. 23:17-18) 22; yet Judah is not destroyed by God. Therefore, I believe that it is not the mere act of coitus interruptus that caused God to destroy Onan. It was his lack of love for his brother to produce offspring for him that displeased the LORD! We must seek clear answers to the reasons things are done and examine the scripture in the context they are written. It is clearly wrong to take two sentences from an entire chapter and state their meaning as a natural law and condemn the act as a mortal sin.
So, I tell you that as a Christian I think mostly in terms of my salvation in Christ and of the new covenant, not to substitute for the old which must remain in place but instead giving light to the old, in which it is said that the laws of God could be fulfilled in the one commandment (Romans 13:8) 23 Christ gave us: Jesus said, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34) 24.” This new truth, new way, and new light that is Christ is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament and covenant; proclaimed by the prophets who obeyed and fulfilled all the laws of God. The same foreshadowing and truth is found in this story so that we may take heart to the lessons of Christ for our deliverance: Onan’s sin was his failure to hold love in his heart for others so that he would do the right thing. He was “wicked.” Christ is the source of true love. Without Christ’s love in our hearts given to us by him through the Holy Spirit, we are condemned to death by sin (Romans 6:23, Romans 8:2) 25.

20. Gen. 38:9-10
21. Gen. 38:15
22. Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 18:10, Leviticus 18:15, Leviticus 18:17, Leviticus 20:17, Deut. 23:17-18
23. Romans 13:8
24. John 13:34
25. Romans 6:23, Romans 8:2

[christianlove]

Again, how is coitus interruptus a violation of any law of God? Certainly, there is no violation of Love. In fact it is the personification of Love when two people made holy and sanctified as one flesh are united in this way. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them, (Gen. 1:27) 26” flesh of [his] flesh and bone of [his] bone (Gen. 2:23) 27 as one individual. In this moment of intercourse they are indeed one and this embodies the male and female image of God together as the one He is; the image of God: Love (1 John 4:8) 28. This is the unitive aspect, and let it not be underestimated. In his image as one flesh, these two persons become yet a third in the action and embodiment of Love, representing a beautiful emulate of the Trinity: the Matrimonial Trinity. The love between a couple is what God made them to become, what Christ taught us to do, and what the Holy Spirit inspires us to be.
Does the withdrawal and loss of seamen to prevent an unplanned pregnancy (procreative aspect) in anyway diminish the most awesome closeness to God individuals can share together (unitive aspect)? How can this be a sin which “sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it (Gen 3:5)” 9; or “turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him (CCC1855)” 15; it is just the opposite. This cannot be a sin, much less a mortal sin! So is it the lack of love or the spilling of the seed that is sin? Is it the failure to fulfill the unitive or procreative actions that is sin; both; either? I say neither. Rather, a sin is born when neither the unitive or procreative process is fulfilled, frustrating both in an act of self indulging gratification by an act of objectified sex that has no purpose.
The CCC states that “[abstinence during times of fertility] respects the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favors the education of an authentic freedom (CCC2370) 30. This is hard to understand. Having sex or not should have nothing to do with respecting the body of your spouse. As a person cannot hate his own body (Ephesians 5:29) 31, a person who is truly united with their spouse by being made “one flesh (Gen. 2:24) 32” cannot disrespect the counterpart’s body. It has nothing to do with sexual intercourse, only with love and mutual unity.
Furthermore, the particular occasion when a woman is fertile does not make her more vulnerable to disgrace; in fact it makes her radiate with sensuality and aspiration to feel her husband’s true love and power to join with her. It is a blessing that God gives her to satisfy her need to be feminine as a man is masculine. Together, as each kind, they are truly the pinnacle of the image of God. What better way to encourage tenderness than passionate union with one another during this time of intense emotion and desire for another. Do not mistake this as meaning lust! The CCC defines lust as a “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes (CCC2351) 33.” Lust, defined as a sin in Galatians (Gal 5:19-21) 13, should not be found in a truly sanctified marriage between two God fearing people whose journey in life is to glorify his name! It is for his glory that we give ourselves to each other thus fulfilling our commitment to the Sacrament instituted by Christ.
Finally to say that refusing to give each other sexual intercourse when both desire it for the purpose of unity and not procreation is a process of fostering authentic freedom is illogical. Our freedom comes from giving each other ourselves willingly and with heart and soul. To abstain is truly inhibiting this freedom. This is the freedom sanctified by Christ to be a grace: a way to increase our relationship with him and His Father by the Holy Spirit. It brings us to Him in all ways imaginable and settles our hearts on one another to secure fidelity even without fecundity. In fact, St. Paul tells the Corinthians not to deprive each other of sex and abstain only with mutual consent for a time for prayer, so as not to let the sexual desire, most lofty during fertility, lead to self indulgence or anger (1 Cor 7:5) 34.

26. Gen. 1:27
27. Gen. 2:23
28. 1 John 4:8
29. Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]
30. CCC2370
31. Ephesians 5:29
32. Gen. 2:24
33. CCC2351
34. 1 Cor 7:5

[christianlove]

The Encyclical Letter of Paul VI
As a means to a conclusion, I consider the encyclical letter, “Human Vitae 35,” written By Pope Paul VI in 1968 on the regulation of birth. It is quite clear in this letter that all forms of birth control are condemned by the CC and will never be tolerated. There is no exception and there is no means of right to justify the wrong. Again, I only consider coitus interruptus here because this is my concern. Other forms of birth control are further debatable elsewhere and carry with them different philosophy and mentality as far as I am concerned.
As for Human Vitae, Human Life, its dissection begins with the Pope’s astute realization that this subject of regulation of birth can no longer be ignored by the Church. During the year 1968, the sexual revolution had taken a hold on the entire world, and there was a deep concern that birth control liberated many people from their feelings of moral responsibility. Pope Paul VI makes note of this problem by writing that “[human beings] need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.” How does birth control become a disincentive to keep moral law? Is it the fear that a child could be conceived that would prevent people from having sex? This did not stop Judah from impregnating Tamar (Gen. 38:24-26) 36, nor King David from fathering a child with Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah (2 Samuel 11:4-5) 37. The problem of sexual deviants is not new; it has only been brought more fully into the public view in recent times through our easy access to multimedia outlets, and pornographic magazines, pictures, and videos have desensitized many to the immorality and “failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment” to sexual pleasure (CCC1849) 11. The morality of the World is not changing because of birth control. Of most concern, however, it is the lack of true brotherly love for one another that Christ so adamantly taught us (Romans 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 2 Peter 1:7) 38. In this instance, there is a good cause of alarm. If Onan had loved his brother and cared for his wife, his Father would not have sinned with her. In addition, if David loved Uriah like a brother, he would not have taken his wife as his own and angered God. In this way, with true brotherly love, we fulfill all the laws of God. What has birth control got to do with violating God’s law?
St. John Chrysostom says of prohibiting conception, “Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]) 1, 29?” Is not the sexual unity with one another a gift from God? Then abstaining is likewise “condemning the gift of God and fighting with his [natural] laws.” Is it a sin because we are not fulfilling the promise to create life; is this a law of God; a natural law? Let life be created where and when life is desired by God to be brought into the world through love. Can God not make a woman pregnant by her husband when he wishes? By abstaining, a woman’s egg will simply drift through her body and wash out never to be fertilized. She is choosing not to be inseminated by refusing intercourse; so she preventing a child’s formation. Is this loss of potential for human life “condemning the gift of God?” Without ejaculation spermatozoa are dying every day within the man’s testicles; the entire supply of stored spermatozoa will be turned over every 3 months. 500 million potential lives are lost! Is this “fight with his [natural] laws” cause the loss of potential life; so this is a sin? No! Do we let the natural process of our dying reproductive seeds take place inside of our bodies by avoiding the unitive aspects of intercourse that brings married couples to a close bond of love and deep personal relationship with themselves and with God because if we do let them die outside of our body it would be particularly detestable to God? I find no good justification for this in Scripture, Gospel, or the teaching of the apostles and early Church fathers.
Human Vitae 35 goes on to state that the natural method of abstaining from sex during fertile days is not in contradiction to preventing the “generative process” by artificial means because the former method uses God’s intended cycle of the woman to provide times of intercourse. Yet again, I must object to this not so much that they are in contradiction as I have already discussed above but also that by withholding love from one another during a time when spouses mutually desire the intimate gift of God is neglecting the gift of marriage and the blessings bestowed upon it. It can be detrimental to a relationship to prevent making love as during times of intense sexual emotion a female has during her fertile period. What is more is the amount of time the unified couple must refrain from intimacy is almost a third of the month. During this entire time, the couple must avoid even the mere whisper of sensual contact or the innate human weakness of the flesh, born from original sin, overwhelms them and may result in lustful and objective intercourse. Willfully permitting intercourse at times of mutual consent, no matter the fertility, is gravely important to the marriage and its continued appreciation of one another to remove the temptation to make sex an act of fleshy “necessity” instead of a motion of communal love. Time makes the heart grow fonder, but abstinence makes the flesh grow weaker!

35. Human Vitae
36. Gen. 38:24-26
37. 2 Samuel 11:4-5
38. Romans 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 2 Peter 1:7

[christianlove]

The value of self-discipline is discussed such that its fruits are recognizing the true blessing of family life, transforming sexual intercourse into a “truly human character,” fostering loving consideration for one another, repelling “an inordinate self-love”, arousing sense of responsibility, and conferring a deeper sense for the education of their children. So let us take each of these into consideration.
It is true that self discipline is rewarding when it is offered to God as a means of sacrifice and prayer, for example when fasting. In this case, though, to take a sacramental blessing given to us by God and offer it back to Him seems wrong to me. Do we proclaim we will withhold taking the Eucharist as a means of fasting? No! Sacraments are given to us as gifts, do not throw them back! In this way, refusing to give the desiring spouse what they need, when the other is also wanting it, only for the means of not frustrating the procreative process (meanwhile very much frustrating the unitive process) is “an offense against God” (CCC1849) 12. In this way, the procreative and unitive processes are frustrated. As stated above, removing both of these aspect from the marriage is less than desirable, and this makes it more of a sin then simply frustrating the procreative process that does not offend God.
Next, do we really want sexual intercourse to take on a more human character? It seems it is human enough in lustful affairs and the state of freely given sex among the unmarried and adulterous. It should be offered as a more divine act that brings us closer to God. As I mentioned above, it is the only act that the two halves of God can truly join to become his perfect image. There is no human characteristic needed here unless there is God in the middle. We need God to be in our relationships to be a blessing of unity as much as we need Him in our hearts to truly be alive. If sexual intercourse is not a human characteristic, then what is it? Indeed, the married couples who offer themselves to God are the ones who find quite more than a human experience in sexual intercourse. Atheist find human characteristic in sexual intercourse; however, through God and Christ, Christian find the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony each time there are relations despite unitive or procreative process in play.
Consideration for one another is not fostered by abstaining as I have already spoken to. Treating your spouse as your own body means to give all that is good and right to him/her so as not to cause frustrations and consideration is what is needed in more marriages. To blame birth control for the slippery slopes of the world’s moral fiber and the high divorce rates in urban societies is not evidence based or substantiated. Self-respect and respect for each other, through brotherly love, is the premise of the solution. Blaming anything else is scandalous and self-blinding.
So there is no self-love in giving yourself to your spouse. It is the commitment that is made between the two of them during their wedding vows that they give each other wholly to the other for the whole purpose of releasing one’s self for the greater good to the two made one; this is the very basis of conjugal fidelity (CCC2364) 39. If the two people are truly in love and share this love always, then they can never be self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5) 40. This is similar to the commitment of fidelity of which St John Chrysostom states that husbands should say to their wives, “I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you (CCC2364) 41.” It is this love that allows them to listen, speak, and understand each other so as to “conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality (CCC2368) 42” and use this objective criteria to justly separate the unitive and procreative aspect of conjugation without sin. Without this mutual love, this oneness, a married couple is not truly sharing the bonds of love and so it is possible that the unitive process is never fostered between them. In this sense, there is not frustration, no obvious sin, just desperation and a need for Christ to teach them the love that can save not only their relationship but their everlasting life. Indeed, as we all seek to emulate Christ and find his everlasting peace, the married couple seeks to emulate in their marriage his self-sacrificing devotion to his bride, the church. In this way only can the love in a marriage live up to its full potential.

39. CCC2364
40. 1 Cor 13:5
41. CCC2364
42. CCC2368