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.
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.