Posted on 11/01/2023 11:31:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
ROFLOL
Translation: The latest from the Left’s endless quest to make all men into eunuchs.
—-> As he has condemned the spilling of the seed.
He condemned a man for refusing to fulfill his duty to his brother’s widow under the law.
Simple as that.
—> if we keep that pleasure within marriage.
It’s the best.
—> the biology established by God shows that its purpose is procreation.
You seem to have missed spiritual union between a husband and wife - and God’s encouragement to enjoy sex.
You’re right.
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Casti connubii)The problem arises when someone tries to use this secondary end to justify violating its primary end.
This is a recent interpretation. For 1900 year the universal interpretation, of both Protestants and Catholics, was that the sin of Onan was the deliberate spilling of his seed. The Anglicans were the first to break from this consensus in its approval of birth control at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. Frankly, this interpretation is self-serving.
Have you actually read my posts? I have indeed reaffirmed that. All I have stated is that that aspect of the marital act cannot be separated from its primary end of procreation.
—> This is a recent interpretation.
It is what the text and the context says.
Simple as that.
—> All I have stated is that that aspect of the marital act cannot be separated from its primary end of procreation.
Procreation may happen or not.
Nor does God require us to have 13 children.
The couple is to still have sex.
For 1900 years all Christian disagreed with you. The text is not as clear cut as you might believe. The change in interpretation arose with the invention of the pill.
Nowhere did I state that a couple had to limit their actions to when they were were able to have children nor that that they must desire more children. Only that they must not block that outcome if it be God’s will. The union of the couple is also legitimate motivation.
—> For 1900
For 1900 years the text has said the same thing - as well as the context.
—> Only that they must not block that outcome if it be God’s will.
You have freedom to make that choice.
**Last I saw, it raises the risk of prostate cancer.**
I wouldn’t doubt it. Messing with God’s creation is always a poor choice.
I’ve heard the ‘pill’ has caused health problems for women.
A friend of mine had a vasectomy probably 20 years ago and his nuts got infected. Swelled up to the size of a grapefruit and turned black, (he is white). He damn near died. No thanks.
Breast and liver cancer, to the best of my recollection.
...the dog knows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.