Comments for New Challenges on “Birth Control” at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 21 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 20:07:39 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10467 Thanks for your article. A small point: the Church does not find contraception to be immoral because of its artificiality (as opposed to a "natural" method of contraception, such as oral sex), but rather opposes the deliberate effort to frustrate the marital act, however done, from reaching its natural end. (NFP does not deliberately frustrate the marital act and does nothing to prevent it from reaching its natural end.) - Tom Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:08:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10343 I've been amsued for years at the new scholalry interpretation of the Onan Story. We are now to believe that for these thousans fo years Jews and Christians misunderstood Scripture becuase an inept Holy Spirit had not been careful enough to unambiguously state justn exactly what Onana's sin was, leaving us carelessly and unintentionally to see it the narrative its most obvious but now apparently false meaning. Ot maybe this was an act of Divine Misdirection according to which we were intended to misinterpret the passage untill such time as the world began to become overpopulated, at which time the REAL nature of the poor man's sin would be revealed, thereby liberating humans from the onerous tasks of parenting glorifying the human capacity for gratuuitous carnality. And thankfyou, Manfred, you are a rare gem! - Thomas C. Coleman, Jr. Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:42:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10341 Howard: I must commend you for the Washington Post citation which I have downloaded. Did the Council Fathers at Vat. II really think they had anything in common with a world which rejected for centuries the Church AND The Washington Post's editorial position as strong as that was? They wanted to open wondows to this world? At the March 9, 2012 ad limina visit by some American bishops, BXVI is still trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube on the subjects of chastity and marriage. It was he who has stated that the Church is no longer in the time of the Syllabus (PIX, 1869). I believe that is precisely why we are in this position today. - Manfred Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:19:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10334 @Howard Kainz: I do not doubt that modern commentaries downplay the contraceptive nature of Onan's sin (this is one reason why I tossed my free copy of the New Jerome Commentary). However, by DEFINITION, Onan's sin couldn't be violating the Levirate law. Refer to Deuteronomy 25:, which defines the Levirate marriage as the duty of the dead husband's brother to marry the widow. There is nothing about his OBLIGATION under the Levirate law to bring forth children, but should children occur, the first-born son would be credited to the deceased brother. BY DEFINITION, Onan upheld his duty and did not violate the Levirate law. His sin, therefore, is not Levirate-related, and is purely his intentional action to prevent conception of a child through Tamar. - Aaron Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:54:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10316 @Don Schloeder: Both the Catholic and the Protestant Scripture commentaries I have point to this as an infraction of the Levirate law. Isn't it even a worse Levirate infraction if Onan agrees to marry, and then frustrates the intention of the marital act? - Howard Kainz Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:50:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10315 @ML:Sorry, that should be March 22, not March 23. - Howard Kainz Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:45:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10314 @Howard Kainz: That interpretation of the Onan story flies right in the face of the Deuteronomy verses which you reference. The penalty for breaking the Levirate law is spelled out clearly: 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. In other words, the penalty for breaking the Levirate law is to humiliate the surviving brother. So why was God so displeased that he struck him dead? What was different in the Onan story is that he wanted the gratification that comes from sexual union without the accompanying responsibilities. That is precisely the nature of contraception. - Don Schloeder Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:48:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10312 so nice to see some history! - CaseyinAlaska Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:32:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10308 I couldn't find that editorial in the March 23, 1931 edition of the Washington post. Wrong date? - ML Fri, 09 Mar 2012 06:49:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10300 @DS: Yes, the intention is important. If a couple were using NFP to completely avoid ever getting pregnant, e.g. meticulously checking for fertile periods, etc., that would be wrong (and strange). But used rationally, NFP is useful for having or for spacing births. - Howard Kainz Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:10:26 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10299 @Thomas C. Coleman: Onan's offense was not just coitus interuptus, but also breaking the Levirate law (Deut. 25:5-10) which commanded that a brother should raise seed to his deceased brother by marrying the widowed wife. In the context, Biblical scholars take this to be the most important factor in this story. - Howard Kainz Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:03:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10298 I sometimes wonder whether the manner in which NFP is promoted -- often described as "just as effective as artificial methods" -- by the Church causes confusion. Does/should the intent of the married couple during sexual relations play any role? Encouraging a couple to utilize NFP to reduce the chances of conception complies with the natural law in a legalistic sense, but it also can convey a powerful sense of control over the procreative process to the couple, and it gives legitimacy (even primacy?) to their desires and intentions regarding size of family and timing of pregnancies. At a more fundamental level, NFP seems to be at a half-hearted fulfillment of what Professor Kainz cited in his last column: "Yahweh's commandment to 'increase and multiply'." This is a clear, unambiguous divine directive to procreate. Shouldn't the Church be teaching couples when to have sex in order to increase, not decrease, the chances of conception? - DS Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:58:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10297 Whether or not either the Chruch Fathers or modern Popes cite the "Onan stroy," I do not see how anyone who taeks Scripture even the least bit seriously can fail to be sutnned by its obvious meaning. Rrecall that in Geneisi not even the first murder is pusnished by death, but Onan's abuse of the reproductive faculty did warrant his death "so great was his sin." And now we are told we have simply misunderstood this passage for thousands of years? If the consistent teaching of Holy Mother Church on this stands on natural law, then I am moved to believe that the Holy Spirit wanted that passage there to instruct us before before anyone even conceived of the idea of Natural Law. - Thomas C. Coleman, Jr. Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:54:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10295 @Pete Brown: Some of the Fathers of the Church did cite the Onan story. But you are right, that was not the only or the main reason for their opposition to contraception. - Howard Kainz Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:28:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10294 "The American people, whether they support contraception or not, are now being asked to come to the aid of those who do not feel they should have to pay for contraceptives. " The problem is not so much paying for contraception (Sebelius says it pays for itself by eliminating the conception of people. Therefore a "population dividend" credit could theoretically be issued to each premium payer to neutralize the cost, but that would not make the practice any less morally justifiable.) No it is the legitimizing of contraception and its morality by government which is the offense here. The setting up of our society to play Centrifugal Bumblepuppies, and the corresponding cheapening of sexuality, marriage, parenting, and family. And the transfer of those institutions to the government domain. Let's jettison our effete obsession with government required employer paid insurance premiums, a category which should never have been countenanced. Third party payor economics and its price-corrupting effect is bad enough, but when you throw in the government as the fourth party, with its design on population emaciation, you have an intrinsic prescription for tyranny. Oppose Obamacare. Period. - Sue Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:23:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10293 The United States will see the direct imposition of a contraceptive mandate if the Church fails today's government challenge. In short order, "Free" contraceptives will be provided to avert a high household tax based on the number of children over government mandates, in effect a softer form of China's policy. Consider Leon Panetta just informed Congress that International consensus trumps Congress' will. If global governance structures can dictate war over the people's will, as represented by Congress, then population control structures will be next under the Green movement. The Vatican had better come to the realization that cooperating with the secular U.N. so as to "guide it to its proper ends" is a disastrous proposition as evidenced by our own bishops success courting the secular left. It is time to actively fight for survival rather than pastorally guiding us to an abyss for the secular left has no intention, let alone contrition, to amend their ways. - Matt Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:37:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10292 Nice piece Dr. Kainz. I think however it's inaccurate to describe the Church's modern position as in any respect based on the Onan story in Genesis 38. It is not. Casti Connubi in 1930 did indeed cite this story earlier as a basis for opposition to birth control rooted in revelation. But tellingly neither Humanae Vitae nor Evangelium Vitae cited Gen 38 or any other passage in Scripture. The teaching instead is based wholly on natural law. Evidently between 1930 and 1968 the Church has decided that opposition to birth control is not rooted in revelation after all. The teaching has remained constant in other words though the rationale has changed a little. Or so it seems to me - Pete Brown Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:09:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10291 The bishops know it too, which is why those of us who do live and support the Church's teachings need to rally to them as never before. It won't do to complain they are not doing enough if we don't support what they are doing. - Dave Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:21:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10290 Thank you, Mr. Kainz, for your succinct analysis of the situation. This is a good article for sharing with friends. I find that many Catholics have not read Humanae Vitae nor do they have the historical perspective that you highlight so well. - Sherry M. Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:19:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/new-challenges-on-birth-control.html#comment-10289 I have come to believe that President Obama concluded that this controversy regarding the HHS mandate is to his political advantage, even among many voters who self-identify as Catholic. It would seem to be a perfect wedge issue during this election cycle. While it would be entirely speculative to claim a "conspiracy," I do believe that Obama and his advisors concluded that, for the 2012 election cycle, the net effect of this controversy will be positive. What better way to divert attention away from the economy, with the help of supporters in the media, and to make voters, even many Catholics, concerned about this issue. Seemingly, Republicans have walked right into the trap. When George Stephanopoulos asked his infamous questions at the New Hampshire Republican primary debate, I was puzzled. Why these questions now? Now, it seems clear that there were some behind the scenes activities going on at the time, perhaps even a semi-coordinated effort between Obama advisors and some members of the media. - TomD Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:28:18 +0100