Dawn Eden, of the Dawn Patrol describes herself as "a nondenominational, small-'e' evangelical Protestant" who takes essentially "a sola scriptura approach to moral issues". She believes "that the Bible is the inerrant word of God". Why do I mention these things. I want to grab the attention of evangelical and fundamentalist readers.
Dawn has written an interesting piece about Christians and contraception. There's a lot of disagreement among Christians about the appropriateness of contraception, or lack thereof. I'd like my Protestant readers to read another Protestant's support of Catholic reproductive teachings and comment.
Funky Dung
Comments 23
[1 of 2]
Hey, who ya callin' Fundamentalist?
Okay, yeah, you got me to bite!
Look, evangelicals going au natural is no news. In fact, we have some dear (but excruciatingly conservative evangelical) friends a few years back who (shortly after their vasectomy) were supremely convicted by a book that suggested we "let God determine the size of our family." I.e., do not contracept in any way, even NFP. You can see this philosophy creeping in even with Dawn. She concludes:
Even the idea of using Natural Family Planning in such a situation doesn't feel right to me, because it treats children as an acceptable risk rather than a welcomed gift. So this commandment not to use contraception—and it is a commandment, filed under "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not kill," and, "Be fruitful and multiply"…
First off, the idea of letting God determine the size of my family is about as useful as letting God determine when I should wake up in the morning. That's right! Throw yer alarm clocks away. Guess what? "God" will almost surely "decide" that I should get up late. And guess what? If you "let God" determine the size of your family, then I'll lay odds that "God" is going to "decide" that you're going to have a BIG family (assuming normal fertility). So who was really doing that determining anyway?!
Now I'm well aware that the RCC does not say "let God determine the size of your family," but instead allows NFP as an alternative. I just wanted to get that peeve off my chest and point out that this view is perhaps one of the best examples of sola scriptura gone rather awry.
That said, let's review what we DO agree on:
1) Family planning, in principle, is allowed.
2) Abortaficient methods of birth control are not allowed (pill, IUD, abortion, others??). [I'm well aware that many evangelicals don't agree with my view on the pill but that is mostly out of their profound (and aggravating) ignorance. For the sake of this argument, let us assume that I'll have a ready rolling pin to whack them all over the head.]
3) In none of life's activities, we should not be primarily motivated by our own gratification. We should no sooner terminate a child for our own personal comfort than we ought intentionally have a child for perceived personal actualization.
Assuming we (RCs and Evangelicals) agree on the above, let me outline what appears to me to be the crux of the matter between us.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 8:29 pm ¶[2 of 2]
Consider a couple practicing NFP. Let us not question their motives (#3 above) for doing so. Let us assume the motives are completely pure. There is an epoch of the menstrual period where probability of conception is extremely low (the Low Probability Epoch (LPE)), and another epoch where the probability is "high" (call this the High Probability Epoch (HPE)). NFP is basically saying that semen must be emitted in the vagina, but that you may (if you wish) only do so during the LPE. You must avoid copulation (or at least any activity that involves male climax) during the HPE.
Assuming that is a fair analysis of the situation, here are my problems:
A) Need the NFP couple consider sexual positions or depth of penetration? These can affect the probabilities of conception. I.e., is it the reponsibility of NFP couples to ensure the highest probability of conception (deep penetration in the "Missionary" position) irrespective of menstrual epoch? "Doggy-style" not allowed? Side-by-side?
B) Ancient and Medieval scholars considered semen "seed," as if there were little people who need a good garden to be planted in. We know better now. Until sperm cells meet and fertilize a female gamete, they have no moral significance. If you don't use 'em, you lose 'em. They'll get reabsorbed into the body, they'll get emitted during your sleep. If you "spill" them, your body will happily make more. Bottom line: every sperm is not sacred.
Thus, why is it so critical that semen be emitted in the vagina? Why not very shallowly? Remember, probabilities are decreasing fast with shallowness… How shallow is too shallow? Outside the body entirely? If so, why? What if foreplay causes ejaculation? Oops! Should we thus disallow foreplay?
There seems to be an almost gnostic (in the worst sense of the word) prejudice against sex in Ancient and Medieval thought, and a corresponding prejudice in favor of virginity. Thus it is easy to see how such mores arose. But do we really believe such mores today? Do we really think that sex is just an unfortunate necessity to propagate the species? I think not.
C) There is no "moral" equivalent for the female to male ejaculation. Probabilities of conception are (largely?) unaffected by the occurrence of female orgasm. Thus, even if we assume that men should only intentionally ejaculate well within the confines of a vagina, no equivalent rule could possibly be construed for the female. A woman is ultimately unconstrained (assuming it doesn't involve adultery or its moral equivalents) in how she acheives orgasm. Therefore oral sex, masturbation, vibrators would (at least in theory) be permitted for females. Well this seems preposterous to me. It seems that sexual pleasure should be equally available to both partners. What's good for the hen should be good for the rooster…
Okay, so let's say all that stuff AIN'T permitted to females or males. Then we're sa
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 8:30 pm ¶[3 of 2]
Okay, so let's say all that stuff AIN'T permitted to females or males. Then we're saying that the rules that apply to men because "every sperm is sacred," apply by extension to females even though their gametes don't work the same way! Then what? Many (if not most) women require direct clitoral stimulation to acheive orgasm. Such stimulation is often not readily provided by sexual intercourse only. So then what? For such women, we just condemn them to not having orgasm? I doubt it. So it IS okay to give manual stimulation (by herself or from her partner)? But only when the penis is inserted? But why? You could always insert your penis after she "comes," and then copulate according to the rules derived from male physiology. But if the penis need not be inserted, then why not oral stimulation? It tends to "work" quite a bit better than manual!
Okay, I've blabbed on enough… and probably garnered Funky a well-earned R-rating…
Cheers!
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 8:30 pm ¶Regarding female masturbation, the point is not "seed" (I completely forgot about that quaint Medieval notion until you remind me, and I've studied JPII and the Church's teaching on this matter, having recently been married myself), but that one is treating one's own body as a mere means to pleasure, and not a temple of God. Our bodies are not our own, Paul tells us, so ejaculation aside, masturbation is abusing a profound aspect of our personhood for pleasure.
Regarding penetration and the chances of conception: I never heard that, and am somewhat doubtful that in the "heat of the moment" that a couple is going to be that precise (let's gun for an NC-17 rating here! Woohoo!). I don't think this is really an issue…NFP, moreover, is not purely contraceptive. You are not forbidden to have sex in the high-fertility epoch, just let it be known that odds are pretty good you'll get pregnant! NFP is a chance to better understand our bodies' nature and to work in harmony with that nature. JPII says that ideally a couple will reevaluate whether to have a child. The teachers of the Creighton Method of NFP (see http://www.popepaulvi.com) also emphasize this, and in fact, the Creighton Method has a very good track record in helping couples with infertility. Properly understood within its whole philosophy ,NFP goes both ways with conception–it is not purely negative, as it were.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 9:11 pm ¶Oops. I left out a bit. It should read: "JPII says that ideally a couple will reevaluate whether to have a child every month." Before someone writes this off as mere idealization, remember that with NFP, one must decide whether one can have sex on a given day depending on one's plans for the future and current fertility levels. This requires negotiation between spouses, and improved communication is an oft-cited advantage in NFP-using couples.
I am not saying that there is no good communication with couples using an artificial method of birth control, Steve! I am not knocking your family at all. Your children are fortunate to have such an intelligent and devoted Christian as a father, and your wife to have such a husband. BUT, NFP helps expedite a good dynamic between spouses. The information garnered with NFP practice has useful benefits for the woman in that she can give her OB and primary-care doc much more detailed information about her health, a fringe benefit that should be mentioned more often!
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 9:23 pm ¶Like Jerry says, the idea of primary importance is not to use sex solely for pleasure. Stimulating your wife to orgasm prior to inserting your penis is not prohibited. The point is that orgasm should not be deliberately achieved outside of the context of vaginal intercourse. Read Christopher West's "Good News About Sex and Marriage" for more details.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 9:34 pm ¶[Wow this thread got hot, Hot, HOT! Perhaps it will raise Ales Rarus' rankings in W3 searches of... (how you say) an alternative nature ;-)]
Jerry, Funky:
Let me state categorically I've no objection to NFP. I have it to thank for 2 of my 5 children
I am VERY pleased (though surprised) to hear that stimulating one's wife to orgasm prior to intercourse is acceptable to the RCC. I assume that oral as well as manual stimulation is allowed? Hmmm… so is the "complementary activity" also allowed? As long as ejaculation does not occur? I've always thot this was an excellent way to start, but a bad way to finish…
It does seem however, that we can't seem to get around this idea that "every sperm is (in fact) sacred." Why should it matter where sperm cells end up (provided they don't end up in the OBVIOUSLY wrong place)?
It is far from clear to me (from both Scripture and reason) that masturbation is an abuse. When accompanied by lustful thought, then the conclusion is obvious. But it is far from obvious that masturbation has to involve lust–especially for young men who've not recently emitted. It is not inherently evil to give oneself pleasure. One could argue that lust-free masturbation is the moral equivalent to enjoying a bowl of ice cream, scratching an itch, rubbing one's own neck. I'll tell you what: when you've got a 13yo son, you think about these things. There is even a compelling argument that regular masturbation can curb the (almost overwhelming… in most cases, yes, overwhelming) sex drive that young men routinely feel.
The Funky One says,
the idea of primary importance is not to use sex solely for pleasure.
But for what then would sex be for a post-menopausal woman? a woman who had a hysterectomy? a woman in a particularly infertile time of the menstrual cycle? How could such sex be morally different from, say, getting a hand-job from you're duly lawful wife? or… more to the point, using a condom?
My $0.02
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 10:38 pm ¶It matters where the sperm cells land insofar as they land vaginally because to do otherwise would divorce sex completely from its procreative nature (e.g., as a barrier method would do, or coitus interruptus), bringing us back to the issue of isolating sexual pleasure from the big picture, which has reproduction as a big component. It's not the sperm per se, it's that the full reality of sex be respected.
Yes, oral and manual stimulation are permitted, by the way.
Regarding masturbation: I don't think it can be a stop-gap for lust, everything I've heard of it suggests that it can become an addiction on its own, and may hurt the person when he is having sex with his wife, insofar as he now must focus on something other than his own genitalia.
Eating is eating: you eat to maintain your body, and while some foods are better at keeping you healthy than others, ice cream has its place. Jesus told us not to worry so much about what we ate. As for sexual matters, though, there are two ways we can defend Church teaching (ultimately related, but rhetorically distinct, I think):
1. Psychological and personal: these are the issues I touched on above.
2. The pleasure is taking something powerful and wonderful (sex) out of its proper, interpersonal context. You can eat on your own–it is on a basic level than sex–but sexuality requires another person, and getting the body used to isolated stimuli is doing the body disrepect, and doing the body's maker disrespect as well.
Is masturbation not as evil as an actual act of fornication–I'd say so, myself, but consciously making a compromise of this sort is not a great idea.
(BTW, I don't want to seem like I'm busting anyone's chops over their own habits. I'm just saying that it ain't the healthiest way to run their lives, and here's why.)
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:02 pm ¶I am VERY pleased (though surprised) to hear that stimulating one's wife to orgasm prior to intercourse is acceptable to the RCC. I assume that oral as well as manual stimulation is allowed? Hmmm… so is the "complementary activity" also allowed? As long as ejaculation does not occur? I've always thot this was an excellent way to start, but a bad way to finish…
Yes on both counts.
It does seem however, that we can't seem to get around this idea that "every sperm is (in fact) sacred." Why should it matter where sperm cells end up (provided they don't end up in the OBVIOUSLY wrong place)?
What place is obviously wrong to you? It's not clear in your comments.
It is far from clear to me (from both Scripture and reason) that masturbation is an abuse. When accompanied by lustful thought, then the conclusion is obvious. But it is far from obvious that masturbation has to involve lust–especially for young men who've not recently emitted. It is not inherently evil to give oneself pleasure. One could argue that lust-free masturbation is the moral equivalent to enjoying a bowl of ice cream, scratching an itch, rubbing one's own neck. I'll tell you what: when you've got a 13yo son, you think about these things. There is even a compelling argument that regular masturbation can curb the (almost overwhelming… in most cases, yes, overwhelming) sex drive that young men routinely feel.
Mankind was not created for solo sexuality. That much is obvious from Scripture. Lust-free masturbation? I'll grant that a pubescent male might not be fully culpable for sinful stimulation, but I don't think lust-free masturbation is a common phenomenon. To say that masturbation should be OK because men are weak is a cop-out. It's rationaliztion of sinful behavior, pure and simple. Is it evil to give oneself pleasure? Well, what is the end of sexual behavior? Procreation. Should sexual pleasure be enjoyed outside of the context of procreation? No. Masturbation is a case of all the fun with none of the consequences.
But for what then would sex be for a post-menopausal woman? a woman who had a hysterectomy? a woman in a particularly infertile time of the menstrual cycle? How could such sex be morally different from, say, getting a hand-job from you're duly lawful wife? or… more to the point, using a condom?
I'm not sure how to answer these situations. I'll look into it.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:09 pm ¶Regarding hysterectomies, infertile periods, and menopause those are either an act of nature or a medical necessity for the basic health of the woman, and not just an elective act of convenience, such as a vasectomy would be. Natural Family Planning is just that: natural, you roll with the punches, so if one's wife is infertile due to one of these causes (permanent or temporarily, as is the case for some part of any menstrual cycle), it is okay.
+0
Posted 17 Nov 2004 at 11:54 pm ¶Jerry says,
so if one's wife is infertile due to one of these causes (permanent or temporarily, as is the case for some part of any menstrual cycle), it is okay.
Yes. But doesn't this contradict what Funky says, viz.
the idea of primary importance is not to use sex solely for pleasure.
In all these cases (of temporary or permanent female infertility), sex could only be construed as being for pleasure.
I had ejaculated (hawr, hawr):
Why should it matter where sperm cells end up (provided they don't end up in the OBVIOUSLY wrong place)?
To which Mr. Dung, queried:
What place is obviously wrong to you? It's not clear in your comments.
The obviously wrong place to which I was referring is in the presence of someone who is not your spouse.
And not to leave the masturbation issue alone (since I really do in fact think it relevant), Jerry notes:
sexuality requires another person, and getting the body used to isolated stimuli is doing the body disrepect, and doing the body's maker disrespect as well.
Yes. Sexuality requires another person. Ergo masturbation is not sex. It involves sexual organs, but so does urination (which, if you really have to go, can pretty pleasurable too, come to think of it). I don't follow how it is inherently disrespectful of the body or the body's maker.
To unite the members of my body with another in a prohibited way (fornication)? Yes, it is clearly outlined (by St. Paul) as not only a way, but THE way to dishonor the Temple of the Holy Spirit. But masturbation does not obviously rise to this level.
And as a substitute for sex? It hardly deserves to be considered. Sex is about "the other"–a perfect and holy giving of oneself for the pleasure of another. Masturbation is… well not that… at all. To compare masturbation to sex is the equivalent of comparing
- a cold can of spaghetti-Os to a fresh serving of Tortellini Provesi (with cream and marsala sauce, snow peas, procuitto, fresh tomatoes, basil, etc.); NO it's more like comparing…
- a dry crust of bread, a glass of water, and a Flinstones chewable to a expense-paid trip to an all-you-can-eat Indian buffet; NO, it's more like comparing…
- sentiment to love.
And that really is what it is like. They aren't the same things. Yes, masturbation can be addictive. And that is wrong. Yes masturbation can involve lust. And that is wrong. But any human appetite can be corrupted. I can make the same cautionary statements about any other desirable activity: running (for some), eating ice cream, smoking, drinking, eating Guacamole Doritos… So it doesn't follow for me that any of these things are inherently wrong.
Cheers!
P.S. Click on the Homepage link (below) for a credible (though somewhat Australian) view of some of these issues… they do make some intellectual gaffs, but some stuff makes a bit of sense…
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 3:23 am ¶Steve,
Even perverts like Kinsey would tell you that masturbation is autosexual. It's not asexual. What is the natural end of the act? Ejaculation. What is ejaculation meant for? Procreation. Every aspect of masturbatory acts has a parallel in copulation. The difference? Masturbation seeks to receive pleasure with neither the emotional commitment of a relationship with a partner nor the responsibility of possible parenthood. It's selfish and hedonistic.
Does ejacualtion sometimes happen against our wills? Certainly. However, that something may be used for ends other than what was intended, intentional or not, does not nullify the intention. A car does not cease to be primarily a mode of transportation because one was used in a homocide.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:28 am ¶What is ejaculation meant for? Procreation.
But NOT in the very common cases of above-noted (and sanctioned) sexual acts. Ejaculation into a known-to-be infertile woman is NOT intended for procreation. It is intended solely for pleasure. Yet it is not forbidden.
This seems to be the issue in a nutshell.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:56 am ¶Will you at least concede that sex with an infertile mate still serves unitive purposes? Sexual pleasure is a gift from God, intended for the procreative act. A couple is not usually at fault if they are infertile. They may still be open to having children. Their sexual union is not contrary to its intended functions, one of which is marital union. My personal opinion is that infertile couples should adopt. That strikes me as the loving and grateful thing to do. How is grateful, you may ask. It is recognizing that enjoying sex without the "burden" of possible parenthood is disrespectful of God's created order.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 5:16 am ¶Funky asks,
Will you at least concede that sex with an infertile mate still serves unitive purposes?
Yes. But it's a big stretch to get from unitive purposes to procreative purposes.
My personal opinion is that infertile couples should adopt. That strikes me as the loving and grateful thing to do. How is grateful, you may ask. It is recognizing that enjoying sex without the "burden" of possible parenthood is disrespectful of God's created order.
Laudable, but not mandatory. Sex without the possibility of procreation (barring a miracle) is not ipso facto selfish, nor ungrateful, neither can it be judged summarily to be disrespectful of the Creator. In fact, as I pointed out above, it ought never be selfish, but rather always be about the giving of oneself for the pleasure of another. I think we're all agreed on this point.
You guys (Funky, Jerry) keep coming back to this idea that sex is, at least in some vague way, primarily for reproduction. But I maintain, and would appreciate the concession, that sexual intercourse with a known-to-be infertile woman is (barring the expectation of a miracle) utterly divorced from the procreative idea. This conclusion leads me to the corollary that barrier contraception methods (and generally male climax outside the vagina) are not therefore forbidden, provided the motives for doing so are otherwise pure. [I obviously don't expect a concession on my corollary.]
Now this idea of "burden" for the sexual act is an interesting idea, because, getting back to my Axiom #3 in the first post, it could be argued in just the opposite way in certain circumstances. These days many couples (especially among those who have artificially delayed fertility) seek to have children solely as personal fulfillment. Moreover, they often do so by means (e.g., IVF) just repugnant to the "culture of life" as the means utilized to delay fertility. In such a case, conception is no burden at all, but instead precisely the object of selfish desire.
G'day!
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 3:45 pm ¶Regarding masturbation, Funky notes:
A car does not cease to be primarily a mode of transportation because one was used in a homocide.
But a car does cease to be a mode of transportation if the engine is removed. And autoerotic activity is at most a car with the engine removed. From the outside, masturbation (by any name we choose to call it) may have some vague similarities to inter-sexual relations… but it lacks the "inter-", the "other", the "to whom" to give oneself.
Sexual pleasure is a gift from God, intended for the procreative act.
Gift from God? Yes. Intended for the procreative act? Yes and no. Based on the other piece of the discussion, I think we're agreed that God wishes (and the RCCs teaches) that sexual intercourse between a married couple with zero probability of conception is allowed.
Now I know this has been headed off earlier as a cop-out, but… A conservative Bible-thumper no less than James Dobson has himself stated something to the effect, that "It is estimated that 98% of boys masturbate. And the other 2% are known to be liars."
Think of this. Yes I know we all sin. But who among us has besetting sins such as lying, cheating, disobedience to parents, fornication. Certainly some. But 98%?!?!?! 98% of otherwise obedient believers?
God HAS provided release mechanisms for sexual desire. One of them is called ejaculation. There may be others, and applaud their application. But it is far from clear to me that either the Bible or Reason (informed by the Bible and Tradition) concludes against masturbation in principle.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:20 pm ¶Barrier methods lack an important feature - sacrifice. NFP requires periods of abstinence in order to work. These are times that the couple can be praying, perhaps even about having children. Barrier methods make sex an on-demand phenomenon - pleasure whenever we want it.
"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." - 1 Cor 7:3-5
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 4:20 pm ¶Steve, I don't get what you mean by that 98% statistic. Because 98% of Christian men (according to Mr. Dobson, who has no particular authority over me, especially with statistics,though he spoke of boys in general, not bible-thumping Christians or whatever), does that mean that it's okay?
Well, we're all sinners. That's why we need Jesus. I'm sure that the vast majority of those men have also lied or whatever, so does that mean we scrap lying as a sin?
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 6:48 pm ¶Funky says,
Barrier methods lack an important feature - sacrifice. NFP requires periods of abstinence in order to work. These are times that the couple can be praying, perhaps even about having children. Barrier methods make sex an on-demand phenomenon - pleasure whenever we want it.
1) No. The sacrifice (at least the biggest big part of it as I Cor 7:3-5 clearly points out!!) is in giving oneself for the pleasure of another. So no, barrier methods do not necessarily sidestep sacrifice.
2) No. Whatever sacrifice that is avoided by a "barrier method" is identical to that which is avoided by intercourse when conception is impossible (which, we are all agreed is typically allowed).
Jerry, what I was arguing from the 98% figure is really more of a tangential approach. I agree it has no direct bearing on the morality of autoeroticism. What I was trying to point is that while we all lie (from time to time) and we all cheat (from time to time) and we all disrespect parents/elders (from time to time), a very small percentage of us regularly, habitually, and almost unavoidably commit these sins. But with autoerotic behavior, many, many (surely the vast majority) of otherwise completely dedicated Christian young men "mess up" in this area. It's just surprising… that's all. And I guess it's one reason (though a logically weak one) that it isn't clear to me that it is really "messing up" at all.
TTFN
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 7:16 pm ¶Second thought regarding masturbation: Paul counselled that men marry so that they may not "burn". He didn't mention masturbation. Why's that?
I suppose a common card would be that it was against the social mores of the time (at least for a Pharisee, such as Paul's background). Of course, fornication, sodomy, and abortion were verboten by Judaism at the time, so I find that social mores card weak for anything but matters like whether women should have their heads covered in church. Sexuality has higher stakes, and pleading cultural relativism here can quickly blow up.
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 10:22 pm ¶I suppose a common card would be that it was against the social mores of the time (at least for a Pharisee, such as Paul's background). Of course, fornication, sodomy, and abortion were verboten by Judaism at the time, so I find that social mores card weak for anything but matters like whether women should have their heads covered in church. Sexuality has higher stakes, and pleading cultural relativism here can quickly blow up.
That ancient Judaic morality forbade masturbation is not obvious. The difference being between it and the other clear sins you mention that it doesn't involve or harm another person. It could be that the subject was simply too taboo to bring up. It may have had to reside in the wink-wink nudge-nudge domain. For example, there is no Western record of the existence of female orgasm until about the 15th century (At least I've so read… grain-o-salt). Come to think of it, I don't think we'd even be having this conversation 60 years ago–at least not in public!!
Now the Levitical law (Lev 15) prescribed a bath and 1 day ceremonial "uncleanness" for "an emission of semen." Except for this passage, and Onan's controversial act in Genesis, and a brief mention in Lev 22, the Bible is silent on the issue (no pun intended) of semen. But the scuttlebut is that Leviticus doesn't seem to treat an "emission" (generically) as too big a deal, certainly not as involved as cleansing from menstruation.
What is interesting is that the Bible, at least the OT, is not at all silent on matters that make even some modern folks blush. There're plenty of passages on rape, incest, homosexual acts, beastiality–all condemned. Why is it then, that the bible is silent on "jacking off"? This is quite poignant when one considers that the Levitical Law was excruciatingly detailed. Of course I'm not saying we go back to live the said Law… but it's valuable at least to understand the Ancient Judaic mind and certainly to understand St. Paul's.
I agree that an argument from cultural relativism will get us nowhere (at least where we wanna be) fast! But this argument from profound Scriptural silence seems quite strong.
Time to go home….
+0
Posted 18 Nov 2004 at 11:39 pm ¶Why doesn't someone look into what current orthodox Jews think the scripture says? When following up on Pontificator's post of some orthodox Jewish thoughts on homosexuality, I found a site which discussed this. I think they discussed it under the subject of "halachat vera" which means spilling of the seed. They also discussed whether they ought to be discussing it, wondering if the discussion might be what we would call "an occasion of sin." I forget what their term was.
The general idea seemed to be that a deliberate spilling of the seed was wrong. Their reasoning at first does seem to be along the lines of "every sperm is precious" but I think for them as for Catholics it has to do with respecting always the procreative intent of sex and of the sexual organs. For them as for us,(and they were saying it when we weren't making much of it) the unitive purpose is also much stressed. They say this in different ways, like seeing a scene in a totally different light, or hearing a tune played in a different key or by a different instrument. Maybe like reading a passage translated into a different language.
Maybe someone can go look and report back.
Susan F. Peterson
+0
Posted 05 Dec 2004 at 11:27 pm ¶Readers of this thread might find this Church document (issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) interesting.
Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
+0
Posted 28 Sep 2006 at 12:36 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
Post a Comment