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.