A Look at Some Biblical Texts in Opposition to Contraception

In the following post I seek to lay out a few of the biblical texts related to the Church teaching against contraception. This is not a post intended to give a full defense of the teaching against contraception. I have done that elsewhere, e.g. HERE & HERE & HERE

This post is intended only to set for the kind of biblical logic and background for the teaching which comes to us from antiquity. In fact, no Christian denomination prior to 1930 ever taught the contraception was anything but sinful. The first denomination to depart from this received teaching was the Anglicans, who at the 1930 Lambeth conference set aside more than 5000 years of Jewish and Christian wisdom and embraced the modern contraceptive notion that there is no necessary connection between procreation and sex. One by one the other Protestant denominations fell, such that today, only Catholic and Orthodox Christians, as well as some Orthodox Jews, are left holding the light of ancient antiquity.

These biblical texts display that ancient and beautiful light which reverences and rejoices in new human life, and with God seeks to diffuses this blessed gift far and wide. It is a light which sees human life as a blessing, not a burden, as full of hope, rather than simply being a hardship.

Some proponents of contraception declare that the Bible has little or nothing to say about contraception. And to some extent, they are right. Contraception just wasn’t part of the biblical worldview. People then, loved children, and wanted many. Barrenness was a curse. Fertility, pregnancy, and childbearing were some of life’s greatest blessings. Why would the Bible speak extensively about something that wasn’t even going on? In a certain sense, the Bible’s relative silence on this matter, should shame And startle us, showing how far we have departed from the Biblical norms, and worldview. To a large degree the texts that follow show us how steep has been our fall, and how deep the darkness has become.

Let us then looked at these lightsome texts that show for the biblical case against the contraceptive mentality. The texts are in bold black and italic, in my own comments are in plain red text.

Genesis 1:27-28 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

And thus, having established marriage, God gives them their primary directive, “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it!” It is clear, the God loves human life, and is eager to see this first couple not merely replace themselves, but to multiply, yes, to fill the whole earth.

God is love, and seeks to share his love and diffuse it far and wide. God loves life, especially human life. Here then is a great testimony of the sacredness in the beauty of human life, in the God’s joy at the existence of every human person, and his eagerness to see human life growing and prospering.

It is true, that in biblical history, God will sometimes have to prune, and discipline the magnificent vine he has planted. But His most fundamental demeanor is for life and if he does punish or prune, it is only to foster better growth.

How different is God’s expressed mentality from our own modern mentality, which often sees human life as a problem, which frets over apparent overpopulation (a common modern myth we have discussed. More of that, here Are We Really Overpopulated?). How peevish, how small, and selfish we moderns have become, thinking that every new human life somehow gobbles up resources that I would rather have for myself. There’s little sense of God’s expansive providence or bounty. Having largely dismissed God for our culture, there is no one to trust. And thus we worry of our own resources.

Yes, we are very far from God’s hopeful and joyful proclamation to be fruitful and multiply. Everywhere birthrates are plummeting, our social networks are failing, economies are stagnating, and our selfishness turns back to bite us. To the modern contraceptive mentality God has one thing to say, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Fruitful, faithful and full families are the answer.

Exodus 23:25-26 Worship the Lord your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

Note that, listed among the top blessings of God, is the fruitful womb. Notice here that God ties it to the blessing of food and water and a fruitful land. We moderns tend to oppose these concepts. Thomas Malthus this and other Malthusian doomsayers have long predicted that we would not be able to produce enough food to feed an increasing population. Time and time again they have been proved wrong.

But note too, they do not have God in mind when they think this way. They think only of diminishing human capacities, but not of God. For a believer, the same God who produces the fruit of the womb, can also bring greater abundance to the land. What seculars separate God joins. God never fails, He sends life, he sends resources.

That there are famines in the land at all this due more to human greed and selfishness. There’s more than enough food in this world, food in abundance. Sadly, in this country we pay farmers not to plant since food is so abundant, it is cheap and has a low profit margin. In other parts of the world, where famines do sometimes occur, We have food to send them but, corruption and war make it difficult to get the food to them.

Deuteronomy 7:12-14 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb….You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young.

See that children in abundance are considered a great blessing from the Lord. Israel will be blessed more than any other nation with many, many children. How different this mentality is from the modern contraceptive age, anxious of of overpopulation even as we close schools see our populations age.

Psalm 127:3-5 Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.

Psalm 128:1-4 Blessed are all who fear the Lord, who walk in obedience to him. You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Yes, this will be the blessing for the man who fears the Lord.

Again, something of a striking contrast to modern times is expressed in these Psalms. In the biblical world, children are very great blessing, they are to be desired in great numbers. Oh the blessing of a fruitful life! Oh, to have many children like arrows in a quiver, like fruitful olive plants around the table. The joy of new life in abundance. Such a blessing to be sought!

Compare this to the modern disdain, even scoffing and harsh criticism for any family that dares to have more than two children. Yes there is even a kind of dismay over how someone can possibly enjoy life with “so many children!“

1 Chronicles 25:5 Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shubael and Jerimoth; Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti and Romamti-Ezer; Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir and Mahazioth. All these were sons of Heman the king’s seer. They were given him through the promises of God to exalt him. God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.

1 Chronicles 26:4-5 Obed-Edom also had sons: Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, Sakar the fourth, Nethanel the fifth, Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh and Peullethai the eighth. For God had blessed Obed-Edom.

See in both these passages what a blessing it is considered for these two families to have so many children. One has 17 children, another 8. Apparently these ancient Jews never got the memo that these children are going to “be a burden and inhibit the enjoyment of life’s pleasures.” Many moderns would consider such a family size to be downright irresponsible. Thus what the Bible calls light, the modern world calls darkness, and what God calls blessed the world calls burdensome.

Hosea 9:10-17 When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your ancestors, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved. Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird— no birth, no pregnancy, no conception. Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them! I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.” What will you give them LORD? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry. “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I loathed them there. Because of their sinful deeds…. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.” My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him; they will be wanderers among the nations.

Here is, our first dark passage. In effect, due to her infidelity of sleeping with other gods, Israel will lose for a time her fruitfulness. Embracing the darkness of idolatry and turning away from the light of God, Israel has sinned mightily, even going so far as to offer her children in sacrifice to the Canaanite gods.

If Israel will desecrate life and treat it as fodder for false gods, her punishment is that she will not be blessed with life at all. The punishment ancient Israel my have considered among the worst punishments of all, God decrees, namely, that at least for a time their wombs will be barren and their breasts dry.

And what of us, in the decadent West who have also turned to the dark side, offering our children, through abortion, in sacrifice to the false goddess of sex and the false god of greed. What of us who no longer love life?

In effect, God says fine, you will not have it. And thus, in many places the birth rates of some of the most decadent populations has gotten that they risk nonexistence. God’s message is clear, that we should love life, seek to foster its growth, and treat all human life as sacred.

Genesis 38:6-10 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death. 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.” 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. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

The word “contraception,” is a modern word. The biblical word, and the word used by Christian antiquity to describe what we moderns call “contraception” is Onanism. The word comes from this passage wherein Onan “spills his seed on the ground” and God kills him for it.

Some argue it was the breaking of the Levirite Law that was wicked and thus God slew Onan. But if this is so, why were his brothers, who did the same not killed by God? Onan is uniquely killed by God for the unique thing he did, namely spilling his seed on the ground.

Further, death is not the prescribed penalty for breaking this Law (a custom really): For we read in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 of the true penalty for breaking this law: 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.

Hence the sin of Onan for which he is killed is not the non-observance of the Levirite duty, but of spilling his semen on the ground. Ancient moral manuals until 20th Century see the sin here for what it si and thus termed what we call today “contraception” as Onanism.

Luke 23:28-31 A large number of people followed him (on the way to Golgotha), including women who mourned and wailed for him. Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then “ ‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’ For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

Here is a stunning passage where the Lord Jesus points to a time that would be so dark and miserable, that people would actually say “Blessed are the wombs that never bore, and the breast that never nursed.

While some argue that he was speaking of the events of 70 A.D., Scriptural texts which may have historical references, also point beyond themselves and the first Century. And the Lord’s words also prophetically describe our times, when so many say “Blessed are the wombs that are barren, that are sterilized, blessed are the breast that never nursed.”

The Lord is saying that times can get so dark that people actually think like this. So, welcome to the dark times of the 20th and 21st centuries where people are terrified of children, fear fertility, and call God’s greatest blessings a burden.

The Lord tells us to weep regarding times like these, times which get so dark that God’s blessings are perceived as burdens. Yes weep for times like these when contraception is held out as a virtue, when being against what God is for, is called good and responsible. Weep for yourselves says the Lord and weep for the few children you do have. For in sowing the wind, you are reaping the whirlwind.

The following texts all center on the use of the Greek word “Pharmakeia” which many (rightly argue) is associated with, among other things contraceptive and abortafacient drugs used among prostitutes and libertines in Greek culture. Hence in the passages that follow I indicate the Greek term in the body of the scriptural text and then comment on it below the three passages.

Galatians 5:19-20 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery ( φαρμακεία (pharmakeia); hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 9:20-21 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts (φαρμάκων (pharmakon)), their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Rev 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts (φαρμάκοις (pharmakois)), the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

In each of these texts the word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) is used. It is from pharmakeuo (where we get the word pharmacy) meaning the use of medicines or potions, drugs or spells. Such drugs where often used by sorcerers to induce ecstatic states. But pharmakeia were also used by prostitutes and libertines to suppress fertility and to induce abortion.

Some will argue that pharmakoi can refer to a wide variety of things, and while many modern translators prefer to couch their use in witchcraft and magic arts, note that each time the reference to pharmakoi is made in the verses above, it is in a verse that also directly references sexual immorality. Hence the more ancient manner or seeing them as references to contraceptives and abortafacients seems more plausible.

Here then is a setting forth of the Biblical logic against contraception. We can see, in reading texts like these how 180 degrees out of phase the modern world is with the biblical wisdom, a wisdom that loves life and seeks this gift in abundance. We moderns, despite, or on account of our affluence, fear life, and see children as a threat to our enjoyment of “better things.” Perhaps it is best to end with the advice of the Lord, “Weep for yourselves and your (few) children.”

Msgr. Charles Pope is a Catholic and is trying to sustain the Catholic belief and teachings on contraception.

Here’s the dictionary definition of contraception:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=contraception&resource=Webster%27s&quicksearch=on

There isn’t one from either the 1928 or 1913 Webster dictionaries.

It is a modern word, first recorded in 1891. Our knowledge of when human life begins has rocketed forward since that time. You may believe that contraception is wrong or immoral, but that doesn’t make it so. Nor must it naturally lead to homosexuality, adultery, fornication or abortion.

Clearly it happened long ago as well and is not a modern disease:

http://bible.cc/galatians/5-19.htm

This site is very good for understanding the Bible and what it really says in the NT Greek or OT Hebrew.

Compare what Msgr. Pope infers and what the original really says. All the verses he quotes are available.

Here’s Matthew 5:19 which he doesn’t quote:

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-19.htm

Here is Rev 21:8:

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-8.htm

My experience with Catholicism is that its adherents understand the Bible only less so than their priests. The interpretations are bent so as to buttress a doctrine with little or tangential Biblical support. If it is by divine revelation to a Pope, then so be it.

http://bible.cc/genesis/1-28.htm

Genesis 1:28 is an express command to marry and procreate. It would have been simple for God to also command that we may take no action to avoid procreation, but He didn’t. We, as a part of the natural world, may choose. That is not unnatural.

Not marrying is unnatural and against God.

You may believe as you see fit. It is, as always, your choice.

Dear 1010RD (Ten-Tennardy?) (I hope you don't mind my playing with your name -- I do it in a friendly way!)

You make the point that homosexuality (acted out as sodomy) was an ancient vice, well-known in the ancient world; very true. And so was contraception. The first act of contraception was done in Genesis 38; and in (dis)honor of the man who thus offended God, the word "Onanism" was used, through the 16th-19th century, by both Catholics and Protestants, to describe the sinful practice of deliberately turning sex away from procreation, Luther and Calvin, and many others, preached on the contraceptive implications of the sin of Onan.

All the violations of sex-as-God-created-it --- violations of the unitive and procreative aspect--- are sins. Contraception is a sin because it is perverting the act of sexual union by turning it against its own nature.

But you are mistaken, if you think that contraceptive perversion is comparable to chaste celibacy. You wrote:

”Genesis 1:28 is an express command to marry and procreate. It would have been simple for God to also command that we may take no action to avoid procreation, but He didn’t. We, as a part of the natural world, may choose. That is not unnatural….Not marrying is unnatural and against God.”

To reach this conclusion, my dear friend, you would have to reject a lot of New Testament wisdom. Marriage and procreation are indeed holy --- very much so, since marriage was established in Eden by God, and “Be fruitful” was one of His very first commandments and blessings.. But celibacy for God’s sake, has its own excellence and is in some cases even more suitable for His purposes.

I would have you take a good look at 1 Cor. 7:25 and Matt. 19:11. In 1 Cor. 7, St. Paul clearly teaches the advantages of the celibate state to the married state, providing a powerful refutation of any suggestion that being abstinent is against God.

1 Corinthians 7-
“Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment.
For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…
If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no obligation but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

St. Paul clearly identifies the state of virginity or celibacy as a state that is better than the state of marriage. We also see this in the words of Jesus Himself:

Matthew 19: 11-12
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others ---and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those who can accept this, should accept it.”

Jesus is clearly speaking here, not of eunuchs (castrated men) in the literal sense, but of those who live singly and chastely for the sake of the kingdom of God. There are such who are not best suited to marriage, but for leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry, as St. Paul clearly shows (above, 1 Cor 7: 37, 38).

The Church does not claim to understand these things by means of a special revelation to the Pope. This was he common understanding of all Christendom for well over a millennium.

The teaching about celibacy is right there in the text, quite explicitly: it is not for everyone, but for those who can do it, who have the gift for it, celibacy is of great spiritual worth.

The teaching on contraception is supported by what we can reasonably know about human nature, what is good for persons, families, and societies. The evidence, and reasonable inference from evidence, shows that contraception drastically reduces the "opportunity cost" of fornication: it makes women cheap and fornication easy. When that happens, we know what behavior lamentable human weakness will dictate. Contraceptive societies are in the process of killing off marriage and are in self-inflicted demographic collapse.

Non-contraceptive societies will simply expand to fill the vacuum. And we know who they are.

Imagine a crisp-around-the-edges Margaret Sanger in hell, saying gleefully, "Inshallah."

That's a nonsense argument. "Sex-as-God-created-it" is as goofy a term as you can get. Those reproductive organs are attached to souls with brains. They've got the brains that God gave them. They also have agency and choice. We're made in the outline of God.

Sex for pleasure and pleasure only is part of the sex-as-God-created-it package.

But you are mistaken, if you think that contraceptive perversion is comparable to chaste celibacy.

Whatever. You've not proven that contraception is a perversion of anything. God doesn't contravene sex for pleasure in marriage. Ask any Orthodox Jew what the OT says about sex, procreation and pleasure in marriage. It's the same in the New Testament. The sin is fornication or adultery.

Celibacy can only be chaste, so stop misuing the word. Someone who's celibate and not chaste is a pervert and that's my point. Celibacy is unnatural and contradicts God's teaching.

I understand that you want to defend Catholicism and your Catholic faith and please believe what you want, but the Catholic teaching on contraception and priestly celibacy is wrong, harmful and unBiblical.

You may not be aware of it, but every translation is a transmission. A transmission of the times, culture and perspective of the translator. The chosen words in the Bible are important and so is the context. Your two examples actually buttress my point.

Who is the audience for Matt. 19 and what is the context? Go reread it. Your interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 is utterly laughable.

What makes you think that Paul is unmarried or never married? Paul's own words tell us that he was an observant Jew (See Acts 22:3, Acts 23:6 and Gal. 1:14). He must have been married at some point as this is a principle tenet of Judaism.

In 1 Cor. he may be widowed, divorced or simply away from his wife and abstainig from outside sexual relations to satisfy himself, i.e. he's practicing self-restraint, something the Corinthian saints weren't doing.

I mean do you know what the first letter to the Corinthians said? No, because we don't have it. The Corinthians (all of them or just the leadership? Check v. 29-33) then reply with a series of questions, but we don't have their epistle to Paul, so we cannot be certain of what they wrote or the context of it. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," is part of the Corinthian question and the Greek text makes clear this is a statement of the Corinthians.

Please read the entire verse as Paul clarifies what is right and correct in marriage. You might follow up with Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 4:1–3. It's highly unlikely that Peter, John or any of the Apostles never married. They were Jews and OT/NT Jews marry.

If your Popes have revelation from God telling Catholics that their clerics should be celibate, fine and believe as you like, but the Bible doesn't support that position. Nor do the biological sciences. Catholic teaching on contraception is wrong and harmful as public policy. It gives the devil a wedge issue where none need exist.

Imagine a crisp-around-the-edges Margaret Sanger in hell, saying gleefully, "Inshallah."

That's witty and an ironic image. Thanks.

"Sex-as-God-created-it" is as goofy a term as you can get."

I don't want to over-interpret or mis-interpret you, but you seem to be denying that God made human sexuality in such a way that it has conjoined unitive and procreative aspects, precisely because reproductive organs are "attached to souls with brains". Of course we have freedom to choose, if by this you mean the power to choose-- not being robots --- but not everything we choose is good.

I'm interested in your point of view. Let's say that I think I would be more satisfied as a man than as a woman. Therefore I alter my body with hormones and surgery to remodel my sexual/reproductive organs, acquire a pseudo-penis, and make myself what is now called a "trans-man". Turns out this pleases my husband, and now we like to have sex for pleasure and for pleasure only. We didn't want babies, anyway. Have I a moral right to do this?

Why or why not?

"God doesn't contravene sex for pleasure in marriage."

I never said He did, or anything like it. If you are construing that as my belief, you are mistaken.

"Celibacy can only be chaste, so stop misuing the word."

This shows a confusion about words. The primary meaning of celibacy (Link) is simply "the unmarried state." The primary meaning of chastity (Link) is simply "sexual virtue," meaning, living according to the sexual moral standards of one's state in life.

Therefore celibacy can be chaste, but only if it involves abstinence from sexual expression. It is possible for a celibate to be unchaste: i.e. a person who is unmarried, but does not practice sexual virtue. A porn consumer/ wanker (Link, ok?) would be one example of many.

One hopes that all married people would be chaste (i.e. practice the sexual moral standards of their state in life.) This does not mean abstinence. This means fidelity: using their sexuality as a gift of exclusive self-donation to each other.

This sort of discussion often, very often, gets derailed by people using the same words, but with divergent meanings. Nothing but confusion can result.

"Celibacy is unnatural and contradicts God's teaching."

Your argument here is with St. Paul. He argues his case for it better than I do.

The Jews, interestingly, starting in Biblical times, used periodic abstinence as a means of achieving pregnancy. If you abstain from sex during menstruation, and then count 7 days after the last show of blood, then have a mikvah (purifying bath) and resume relations, you have just done 12-13 days of abstinence which puts you on the 12th or 13th day of the cycle, so the man's sperm count is high and the woman is just on the very verge of ovulation. This is the time of absolute maximum fertility.

That is, precisely, using NFP to optimize the likelihood of conception.

So. You want to do it the Biblical way? There you go! Mazel tov!

"The Catholic teaching on contraception and priestly celibacy is wrong, harmful and unBiblical."

You have asserted this repeatedly, but assertion does not constitute proof.

If the teaching against contraception is wrong, were all Christians of all denominations in the wrong about this for roughly 1,930 years? Because it was only in 1930 that any Christian Church --- the Anglicans meeting at Lambeth, England --- approved of contraception. Before that, it was considered Onanism by all Christian churches.

If the celibacy (the state of being unmarried) is wrong, at what age does it become wrong? Puberty? 18? 21? 40? Is a widower wrong if he does not remarry? Or is celibacy wrong only for priests, but OK for laypeople?

"Who is the audience for Matt. 19 and what is the context?"

First Jesus is debating with the Pharisees about divorce and remarriage, and this serves as a launch into the wider question of God's intention for marriage. At this point Jesus refers back to the very beginnings of marriage in Genesis. He concludes that if a divorced man remarries, both he and his "new" spouse are committing adultery. The disciples find this a hard saying and object that if this is the case, it would be better not to marry.

Jesus immediately refers to the example of eunuchs (men who were incapable of marriage) and says there are people who are born incapable of marriage, or who are made incapable of marriage, but there are also those who live like eunuchs for the Kingdom of God; and those who can accept this, should accept it.

It's not so surprising that the disciples thought this was a hard saying! Yes, in fact, says the Lord, for some it would be better not to marry!

Check out, please, what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 (here's 5 different translations,in parallel format: Protestant, Catholic, contemporary and Reformation-era -- LINK) Obviously Paul was single, and was recommending singleness to others.

What I write has its foundation in Scripture and in the belief and practice of good Christians, including non-Catholic Christians, and including Christians of the Reformation era 500 years ago. You could go on insisting that just about all Christian churches have been wrong about sex and marriage, just about all the time; but such assertion, on the basis of the evidence you have so far shown, is dubious.

Thank you for continuing on this dialogue. Mutual understanding has not always been easy, but I believe we are making some progress. I appreciate your efforts and your good will.

Let's say that I think I would be more satisfied as a man than as a woman.

You have a bad habit of conflating two unrelated things. You describe a mental illness above. Using contraceptives isn't, in itself, a sign of mental illness.

We're Christians and within the Christian meaning of celibate is abstinence. Otherwise, you're accepting fornication as not a sin. It's another nonsense argument. See your own definitions in your own link. The Catholic prohibition on clerical marriage is unBiblical. If it is a Papal decree via revelation from God, fine. Believe as you will, but don't pretend that it's Biblically based

Christ's and Paul's arguments are consistent. Marriage is the highest and expected state. That's consistent with the OT teaching. There is no need for clerical celibacy to serve God. Christ is pointing out the moral terpitude and vacuity of the apostate Jewish teachings on marriage. The world of the NT was much like our own today, morally bereft and selfish. As for other "Christians" practicing the misinterpretation of Christ's and Paul's words, keep in mind that Protestantism as a whole is made up of schizmatic Catholics. Protestants are a Catholic subculture. If Catholic's got it wrong, it's likely that the offshoots of Catholicism would as well. You've hung your hat on the wrong verses. They don't mean what you think they mean. Take a look at the Bible as a whole. Protestants do the same thing you're doing. Hang on to a verse for dear life, to rationalize an irrational belief.

I respect your right to conscience and you can believe what you like. But conflating contraception with moral depravity is nonsense. Can contraception lead to moral depravity? Yes. Must it lead to moral depravity? No. Human choice, as you've pointed out, is the difference. We can choose good.

Let's say that I think I would be more satisfied as a man than as a woman.

”You have a bad habit of conflating two unrelated things. You describe a mental illness above. Using contraceptives isn't, in itself, a sign of mental illness.’

I’m disappointed you didn’t think it worthwhile to answer the question, because I was hoping your answer would cast some light on your larger understanding of sexuality as a part of our embodied gift of self --- our Intelligent Design, if you want to put it that way.

I am not conflating two unrelated issues, but precisely aiming to compare and contrast. So now I have to ask again , because I’m trying to get to the level of understanding your principles.

What do you think of using drugs, devices and surgery to attempt to change one’s sexual nature, i.e. from “male” to “female” or t’other way around? Is it positively good as an act of human choice and intelligence through the application of science? or is it neutral, not to be thought either right or wrong? or is it morally objectionable as contrary to Divine and Natural Law; or what?

If you would give your well-considered answer, and expand a bit on the reasons why, then I will better understand your principles and therefore your arguments.

You’ve raised other relevant issues, but in order for this not to run to a couple thousand words, I’m keeping it short for just now.

“I’m here to learn.”

Thank you.

Up until the mid 1800's the mistaken understanding of reproduction was that semen was literally a seed fully capable of generating life, and that the female was just the fertile ground. We know know that this is not true, and that neither, alone can generate life. Contraception no more destroys life than celibacy. All those sperm, and all those eggs are going to die anyway...

later in Genesis 38, Tamar prostitutes herself to Judah by the side of the road. That's some ethical foundation.

Jack, you are making the erroneous assumption that the ancients in general, and the human authors of the Bible in particular, thought that the male "seed" was literally capable of generating life on its own, with the woman providing only "fertile ground," and thus --- on your account --- the spilling of seed was seen as the equivalent of abortion.

This is not the case. Although of course, lacking microscopes, the people of antiquity knew nothing of genetics and embryology, all people from the time of the herder/breeders realized that the male and the female contribute something. As early as Genesis (arguably written around the 6th century BCE) the central struggle of the Bible is encapsulated in these words(Gen 3:18) - "I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the Woman, between your seed and her seed..." The whole subsequent story springs from this: the age-old enmity between the Evil One, and humankind, identified as "the seed of the Woman."

In ancient Greece, Aristotle believed that menstrual blood was the actual substance from which life generated. In the 1677, a student of Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek first observed spermatozoa in seminal fluid, and most importantly, discovered sperm in female reproductive tracts after copulation. This finding eventually led to the end of earlier preformation theories, which held that entire individual humans were present in the female egg, and that sperm acted only somehow to facilitate the release and growth of this individual.

Even as late as the 19th century, physicians still refused to consider the possibility that male factors played a role in fertility at all. It was at that time that modern embryological science began as the mammalian egg was discovered, but sperm's essential role in fertilization remained unproven until 1879.

That's not even 150 years ago.

My point here is that people could conceptually distinguish between abortion and contraception millennia earlier than you give them credit for; and Onanism would not have been seen as the same as abortion, since it involved only seminal fluid, and not a conceived child. But both abortion and contraception were seen as morally objectionable: abortion because it is an offense against the sanctity of life, and contraception because it is an offense against the sanctity of sex.

BTW, I see that you have some perplexing scruple against Tamar as a heroine. The following article should at least amuse you: concerning the 'Woman Problem' in Jesus' genealogy (Link). I'd love to know your reaction to it.

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.