Posted on 05/15/2018 7:28:18 AM PDT by Salvation
The first reading from Tuesday’s Mass is Paul’s farewell speech to the presbyters (priests) of the early Church. Here is a skilled bishop and pastor exhorting others who have pastoral roles within the Church. Let’s examine this text and apply its wisdom to bishops and priests as well as to parents and other leaders in the Church.
Paul’s Farewell Sermon – The scene is Miletus, a town in Asia Minor on the coast not far from Ephesus. Paul, who is about to depart for Jerusalem, summons the presbyters of the early Church at Ephesus. He has ministered there for three years and now summons the priests for this final exhortation. In the sermon, St. Paul cites his own example of having been a zealous teacher of the faith who did not fail to preach the “whole counsel of God.” He did not merely preach what suited him or made him popular; he preached it all. To these early priests, Paul leaves this legacy and would have them follow in his footsteps. Let’s look at some excerpts from this final exhortation.
From Miletus Paul had the presbyters of the Church at Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, “You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia. I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me … and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes. I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus … But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem … But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God … (Acts 20:17-27 selected).
Here, then, is the prescription for every bishop, priest, deacon, catechist, parent, and Catholic: we should preach the whole counsel, the entire plan of God. It is too easy for us to emphasize only that which pleases us, or makes sense to us, or fits in with our world view. There are some who love the Lord’s sermons on love but cannot abide his teachings on death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Some love to discuss liturgy and ceremony, but the care of the poor is far from them. Others point to His compassion but neglect His call to repentance. Some love the way He dispatches the Pharisees and other leaders of the day but suddenly become deaf when the Lord warns against fornication or insists that we love our spouse, neighbor, and enemy. Some love to focus inwardly and debate doctrine but neglect the outward focus of true evangelization to which we are commanded (cf Mat 28:19).
In the Church today, we too easily divide out rather predictably along certain lines and emphases: life issues here and social justice over there, strong moral preaching here and compassionate inclusiveness over there. When one side speaks, the other side says, “There they go again!”
We must be able to say, like St. Paul, that we did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. While this is especially incumbent on the clergy, it is also the responsibility of parents and all who attain any leadership in the Church. All the issues above are important and must have their proper places in the preaching and witness of every Catholic, both clergy and lay. While we may have particular gifts to work in certain areas, we should learn to appreciate the whole counsel and the fact that others in the Church may be needed to balance and complete our work. While we must exclude notions that stray from revealed doctrine, within doctrine’s protective walls it is necessary that we not shrink from proclaiming and appreciating the whole counsel of God.
If we do this, we will suffer. Paul speaks above of tears and trials. In preaching the whole counsel of God (not just your favorite passages or politically correct, “safe” themes), expect to suffer. Expect to not quite fit in with people’s expectations. Jesus got into trouble with just about everyone. He didn’t offend just the elite and powerful. For example, even His own disciples puzzled over His teachings on divorce, saying, “If that is the case of man not being able to divorce his wife it is better never to marry!” (Matt 19) As a result of Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, many left Him and would no longer walk in His company (John 6). When Jesus spoke of His divine origins, many took up stones with which to stone Him, but He passed through their midst unharmed (Jn 8). In addition, Jesus spoke of taking up crosses, forgiving one’s enemies, and preferring nothing to Him. He forbade even lustful thoughts, let alone fornication, and insisted we learn to curb our unrighteous anger. Yes, preaching the whole counsel of God is guaranteed to earn us the wrath of many.
Sadly, over my years as a priest, I have had to bid farewell to many congregations. This farewell speech of Paul is a critical one I use to examine my ministry. Did I preach even the difficult things? Was I willing to suffer for the truth? Did my people hear from me the whole counsel of God or just what was “safe”?
What about you? Have you proclaimed the whole counsel of God? If you are a clergyman, when you move on; if you are a parent, when your child leaves for college; if you are a youth catechist, when the children are ready to be confirmed; if you teach in RCIA, when the time comes for Easter sacraments—can you say you preached it all? God warned Ezekiel that if he failed to warn the sinner, that sinner would surely die for his sins but that Ezekiel himself would be responsible for his death (Ez 3:17 ff). Paul can truthfully say that he is not responsible for the death (the blood) of any of them because he did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. What about us?
We must proclaim the whole counsel of God, not just the safe or popular things, not just what agrees with our own politics or those of our friends. We must present the whole counsel, even the hard parts, even the things that are ridiculed. Yes, we must proclaim the whole counsel of God.
"It is a sin to have intentionally barren intercourse.I went on to explain in detail that at all those times when the woman is naturally NOT fertile (which comprises by far most of her life) marital intercourse is morally unobjectionable, even though you know very well that the intercourse is not going to cause conception.
That is, to choose against the natural God-designed fertility of marital acts."
Making good use of naturally infertile times is A-OK with God and man, does not violate the religious convictions of anyone on earth, costs nothing, has no side-effects, and embodies an attitude of harmonizing with, instead of fighting again, healthy function. The marvelous female design.
Nothing cut out, nothing chemically suppressed.
Complete in every detail.
There's a moral difference between accepting the natural alternation between fertility/infertility, and deliberately chemically or surgically impairing it.
There's a moral difference between cooperating with the God-given healthy bodily design of a woman, and damaging the God-given bodily design of a woman.
You are equating things that are
and then saying *I'm* inconsistent.
You obtain your conclusions mainly by ignoring what I actually wrote.
It wasn't the contraceptive sex that was the sin thus making all contraceptive sex sinful, it was the rebellion against God's Word. That was the sin that judged.
Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
It wasn’t just a matter of failing to fulfill the Levirate obligation, because the punishment for that is described in detail in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10: it consists of a public insult: the woman can take off the sandal of the man who refused to impregnate her, and spit in his face.
That's it: public disgrace of the man at the city gate.
But Onan was not just given public disgrace: God judged him worthy of death.
Why? Because it wasn't just his refusal of his Levirate obligation-- that only merited a public shaming --- but the WAY he did it: by performing a perverted, contracepted act.
Scripture says "And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also."
It doesn't say Onan was punished for "the thing he didn't do" (raise up a son for his deceased brother). It says he was punished for the thing he DID do.
And what did he do? He contracepted an act of intercourse.
That's why God slew him. God thought was he did was detestable. The point is this: for 1900 years, all Christians---Protestant, Orthodox, Reformed, Catholic, Evangelical, all of them--- understood God's law as forbidding any kind of altered sex act, including both Onanism and Sodomy. Now, since 1930, most of them ignore, have redefined, or have accepted, Onanism.
Give them another 15 years, and most of the contraceptors will redefine and accept Sodomy as well.
Many already do. Right here on this forum, you have FReepers already saying that God didn't explicitly condemn anal ejaculation, and it must be OK, because they do it to their wives.
David often sinned, and sinned very badly. Murder, even.
“And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” - 1 Sam 13
David sinned. He also truly repented. He trusted God and wanted to live in God’s approval. He had faith, not perfection.
It is easy for me to point out the incompatibility of slavery with Christianity - in 2018. I’d have to be very arrogant to believe I would have done the same in Alabama in 1832, or in Rome in 47 AD.
Though I disagree with how you got here I'll skip the steps and cut to the chase. It really seems that you are saying that the bible says that oral sex between husband and wife is forbidden.
Oh my! Weren’t you paying attention during the reign of slick? Oral is not sex. Silly Dungeon Master.
Whew! That's a load off.
The semen --- I'm talking about semen, which is a fluid, per se --- goes into the genital tract. That is the definition of the marital act. That's the one unique act that by definition consummates marriage. It's what makes the whole encounter procreative in form, even if not in effect.
That's why you can't have "marriage" with a man and a man. They can't perform the marital act, duh. They get the whole live gamete shipment down the throat or up the caboose, poor sods, because they don't have a kosher place to stick it.
I'm not going to get any more explicit. Note this: husband and wife are really quite at liberty. Do what you want, but don't forget the marital act.
Wow! Great clinical lesson! lol
And this doctrine of “marital act” comes entirely from Onan?
No. I didn’t say that.
But Onan ought to have put semen into Tamar genital tract. Instead he used her for a kind of contraceptive pseudo-intercourse, which was rebellious against God.
“There’s a moral difference between accepting the natural alternation between fertility/infertility, and deliberately chemically or surgically impairing it.”
You’ve asserted this, but you’ve never backed it up from God’s Word.
“And what did he do? He contracepted an act of intercourse.
You brought this idea to the passage, likely because Rome taught it. It is false.
(Referring specifically to why God condemned him)
I’m reminded, in light of other Old Testament writings, that it was considered a shameful thing for a woman not to conceive. That may also be the significance of the Scripture about not spilling seed.
Are you saying that Onan performed an act of normal, non-contracepted intercourse?
No, I'm saying your interpretation of God's judgement is not in the passage.
It is a Roman teaching you are bringing into the passage.
It happens to be the shared Christian teaching of all denominations for nearly 19 centuries, specifically until 1930. Why 1930? Because it was then, at their Lambeth conference, that the Anglican Church became the only Christian denomination to approve or marital contraception.
How do you account for the fact that for over a millennium, all Christians were wrong? And I mean all Christians---Protestant, Orthodox, Reformed, Catholic, Evangelical, all of them--- who understood Scriptural principles as forbidding any non-natural alteration of sex?
Did the Holy Spirit go asleep for 19 long centuries, only to awaken to tell the Anglicans (of all people!) to ignore the old Christian ethic and get with the contraceptive revolution?
Do you know why the Anglican Church broke ranks and abandoned the historic Christian teaching on marriage (Protestant as well as Catholic) and accepted the contraceptive revolution pioneered by such figures as Margaret Sanger, Robert Malthus, Thomas Huxley, Marie Stopes and Havelock Ellis?
You don't know the history, if you're thinking that this is some peculiarity of Catholicism. It was a Scripturally-rooted consensus that continued for centuries after the Reformation.
The Gay and Trans movements are just the latest manifestations of this self-same revolution against natural sex.
So few people know this history.
I will summarize one more time.
You have made an assertion.
You have not backed it up with God’s Scriptures.
You’ve been forced to claim natural law, history, personal assertions, etc.
You have misused one passage of Scripture.
You have provided nothing else.
No commands from God.
Certainly no command to have limitless children.
Nothing in God’s writings to the church.
If you want to adhere to this personal belief, of course you can. I’ve no complaints about personal preference or practice.
But you are claiming this is a universal, moral, important rule, applicable to all Christians - and presumably all Jews.
Yet God didn’t say it or teach it or command 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.