Of course there are couples with many children who still have children to support, and if they didn’t want a big family ,Like I know of some, the children suffered for the fact that the couple felt they did with out things, and a woman (who I know personally) had 14 children, and resented having them, some are still suffering from the abuse while they were growing up.Their mother reminded them very often that if it wasn’t for the children she could have been some body, and many times said’ I hate the ground you walk on". The woman was pregnant through all her childbearing years.She was not mentally, physically or financally able to take proper care of them.
Yet in spite of the Church’s rule, there were a lot of children conceive out of marriage and either lied about the conception, or went quietly away to have the child and had it adopted out, or aborted. The good old days were not as honest as they would have one believe!
I guess I need to yell more at the author of that cite than at you.
You claimed there was a requirement for PIV sex each and every time. The initial discussion in your cite refers to the necessity of being able to accomplish that task in order to have a valid marriage.
The subsequent letter concerns someone already married, and the author does generally – and gently - express the opinion you offered. But even he acknowledges that other priests would say something different.
The Catholic church has lots of priests. Not all of them agree about everything. But priests are not, on their own, definitive teachers of faith and morals. Here’s a priest that has reached a conclusion that is, to put it mildly, not shared by other priests.
More importantly, it’s not a position taught authoritatively by the Church.
I think the theological justification is pretty much solely due to Sarah and Abraham. Which I don’t find very convincing, since God could just as easily poke holes in condoms as dust out a womb.
Just like the practice of law, where you can be heartily confused by reading the statutes but not the caselaw, so, too, here, can you be tanked by reading a section of the Catechism out of context, especially when you’re helped along by a nutcase like Ronald L. Conte Jr., the author of the page you quoted. Conte is not even a priest.
So there will be moral culpability (albeit minimal) if the subject is a repeat masturbator, juvenile or nervous. Says nothing about how it’s fine for an educated person to do within marriage.
I forgot to mention that the Catechism defines fecundity further on:
Emphasis mine. Unless there are ovaries in the epiglottis, no dice.
In all honesty, I just forgot where to find the Catechism so I googled masturbation and Catholic theology and the guy residing in the well you poisoned was the first to come up. I’ve got David Lodge and Graham Greene books, but they don’t inform actual Catholic practices as far as I’m aware.
I have no idea how to determine what constitutes authoritative teaching of the Church, but at very least it seems safe to say that this opinion is not just one priest who drew an erroneous conclusion all by his lonesome.
Even if a pair of healthy, responsible 20-somethings get married, there’s always the possibility that a child might be left without a father at an early age. The difference with the OP’s example is only quantitative, not qualitative.
Hardly anything has been stated Ex Cathedra, but there are certainly some things that the Church doesn’t seem to think are up to debate – the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the Immaculate Conception, and so on and so forth. I don’t think all of those things were only established as dogma when some pope spoke out of his chair.
I believe you are correct on those things, because it is in the NT; that was one of the things the Bishops of the church established during the Nicene Council. They determined then what they decided was the word ,or inspiration of God.
A better way to put this is that Catholics are OK with sex that is not primarily motivated by procreation as long as the possibility of procreation is not nullified. That would include the use of “artificial” birth control, masturbation and even coitus interuptus.
[QUOTE]
The possibility of procreation is not nullified by any contraception I know of. Condoms break or they are used improperly, the pill might not prevent ovulation, I can’t name a single method that is 100% foolproof. Heck, even abstinence didn’t work for Mary.
A better way to put this is that Catholics are OK with sex that is not primarily motivated by procreation as long as the possibility of procreation is not nullified. That would include the use of “artificial” birth control, masturbation and even coitus interuptus.
The prohibition is against artificial methods of contraception.
Does the Church in its official capacity teach anywhere that ejaculating outside of a vagina is allowable? I was taught as a youngster that the parable of the sower and Onan were the relevant texts, then natural law filled in the rest.
How do you interpret “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life”? Are there any parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is it morally permissible to ignore?
Doubt it. Life expectancy of father isnt a reason.
BTW: Im a Christian, and I used birth control. As someone said, God will provide, and he provided us with the knowledge to manage the number of souls on this planet. After all, we dont want to drain the souls from the Goff.
I hadn’t noticed, likely because I’d never heard that name before this thread, but it was only one of numerous pieces I found on the internet. Either this guy is, despite his total lack of qualifications, the most influential Catholic theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas, or else a lot of other Catholics share the same views.