Oy vey!  Theology should be left to professionals.  And, even the pros need to defer to their bishops.
http://www.originsonline.com/thisweek1.htm

Pope Benedict’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ books, especially the second one,  give a very accessible account of how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament covenants.  It becomes very easy to see how, during the age of the Apostles, they were so converted.  So many things lined up as to be jaw dropping.  I fully recommend to anyone who wishes to understand this better.

Very helpful. We see the supposed inconsistency argument being made more and more with sarcastic references to Levitical laws (mixing crops, eating shellfish, cutting hair, etc.) People who would never attempt to critique Shakespeare’s writings without reading them, or discuss relativity without some understanding of modern physics, are perfectly happy to enlighten us with their interpretation of Scripture. We need to do a better job of debunking these canards.

TO Robert Jones’ is anti-contraception really for the “good of human beings?”  It certainly is good for the one human being contracepted.

Hi Mark,
“I think it’s a mistake to speak of “disregarding” parts of the Old Testament…..we should seek to understand and plumb their meaning as deeply as possible”. Well said!
Reading through the prophets also helps in understanding the spirit of the law. There is the persuasion out there that “the old testament is the old covenant, it’s all done away with”, and to that I would ask: Which “old covenant”? The oldest is the rainbow as a reminder that water will not cover everything again, that one is still in effect. Then there’s the Abrahamic circumcision covenant, but the covenant God made with the Israelite people was basically: Keep God’s commandments, laws, and statutes, and He will live among them and be their God, and they His people. I think that last one still applies on a individual personal level, do we expect God’s holy spirit to reside in and fellowship with lawlessness?. Basically I think it’s a dangerous idea to state the law or old covenant has been fulfilled, and thereby can be ignored. When really it is the law of sacrifices, and the priestly order that the lamb of God fulfilled, the veil has been rent.
Matthew 6:16-18 seems to say(in my opinion); To hide the fact that You are fasting. Wouldn’t that mean to not fast with the crowd? Umm.. like not on Lent, when everyone expects it, along with a ash cross to kick it off, saying “look at me, I’m fasting”?

Thanks for bringing that up, Thinkling! I’ve been meaning to read Jesus of Nazareth.

Thanks Mark, this what quite helpful!  It is true Paul Z that every critic of Old Testament laws that I deal with, have never actually read much of the Bible.  They find a few of the teachings online and bring them forth as proof of why the Bible can easily be discredited.  I get tired of getting dragged down that same road constantly.

Robert - was “opinion” the word of the day on Seasame Street today?  I take it that you only deal in the world of “facts”. These “facts” are probably only “facts” if they container matter and can be measured with instruments and verified whether to be true or false though the scientific method. Is logic and reasoning (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) an “opinion” or a “fact”? Is it not rather a matter of trueness and falseness? Human beings are always searching for the truth whether you like it or not. We have a rational mind that can determine whether something is true or not. Hundreds of early Chrstians, then thousands, and then millions of people testified to witnessing the power of Jesus through miracles,his good news, and His Church. Is it rational to accept these testimonies? I say it is. And in faith I say that there is a God and he sent his only Son to us. Ask Jesus to give you faith.

A terrific and edifying article! I’m always amazed at what I learn on this blog.

Thank you Mark.

Sorry Mark, but you are WAAAAY off base here, going flatly against Catholic tradition and exegesis. See <a >This Post</a> where Pope Pius XI in an Encyclical focused on Sexual morals within marriage directly quotes the Onan case as a plain Biblical proof text against contraception.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2012/03/sin-of-onan-another-reason-to-avoid.html

Knowing the difference between what applies just to the Old Testament and what applies to the New Testament is key to understanding the the whole Bible.  Thw Bible is one story and there is no contradiction in it.  Non-believers, especially atheists, will use passages from the Old Testament to prove that God is not a loving God and not worth following.  Knowing the whole Bible is one of any believer’s biggest jobs in order to make disciples of the whole world.

Rather than getting bogged down with attempting to analyze all of the elements and events in the Old Testament, it should be enough to agree that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by his coming, by his life, death and resurrection, by his grace, and by his New Covenant Church.

Jesus came to fulfill the divine promise of Genesis 3:15. His life, death and resurrection surely “crushed the head” of that old serpent the devil, who had enslaved mankind through Adam’s sin.

The grace Jesus obtained for us on the cross made possible the forgiveness of sins (nullifying the curse of the old law) while his personal institution of the New Covenant and the Catholic Church authoritatively extended that supernatural grace, forgiveness and peace to every future generation.

Then there’s the prophetic word of the Book of the prophet Malachi: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”(Malachi 1:11)

Jesus did a great job fulfilling the Old Covenant (Testament)- with the necessary exception of a few remaining “end time” events. 

Truly, things don’t get any better than that, this side of heaven!

Jimmy, nice post but was Onan violating the _natural law_ in refusing to raise up a child for his brother’s name? Or was he defying a positive divine commandment issued to him particularly? If my brother were to die, would I violate the natural law by declining to “go in” to his wife?

PS: I called you Jimmy but I meant Mark. You can tell which column I read immediately before yours.

Solid..! Nuff’ said.

“What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…“Confused?-go with Rome, for a sure and infallible guide.” Good question, good article.

Onanism most certainly does violate the Natural Law.  Prior to the Lambeth Conf., even prots knew this:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

George:  The natural law says that you take care of your family.  How that is done is subject to the constains of culture and the inventiveness of man.  In ancient Israel, there was no social safety net for anybody, and most especially widows.  Left without children, women were forced to starve or be prostitutes to feed themselves.  The Levirite law (commanding brothers to marry their brother’s widow) was a way of making sure that widows were taken care of.  In contemporary culture, such remedies are no longer necessary.  So no, you are not bound to marry your brother’s widow, but you remain bound by the basic law of love to care for your family in accordance with the norms of your culture.

I heard it recently said by a progressive “Catholic”  that “contraception is a Church rule” (with the presumption that it cannot be in conformity with God’s law because it is made by man). To them I would say: “Show me how using contraception IS in conformity with God’s law.” There’s no scriptural passages that permit one to use contraception. It appears that the progressives have it backwards: using contraception is the man-made rule and therefore not authorized by God…

To say that having sex in a woman’s sterile period is not against naturla law is the kind of casuistry that gives the Catholic Church a bad name.  It is one thing when you do not know when that sterile period is, it is another to map it, and to make sure that your sex acts take place when you cannot get pregnant.  Then it is anticonception, pure and simple.

What keeps a promiscuous woman from charting her fertile periods and use the knowledge to bed as many men as she wants, with time-off for contraceptive purposes? 

Contraception, like all activities can be sued for good or evil purpoese.  For a woman for whom anotehr pregnancy might mean a death sentence, for a family of little means for whom another child might destroy the chance for a good education for the older brothers and sisters (or worse, like in some Latin American countries where when a poor family has a new baby, the oldest child has to go live in the street), there are excellent reasons to use contraception, and to complain about the pill is just blating the competition because you do not have shares in the company.

Really, what keeps a promiscuous woman from charting her fertility?

Of course, the possibility taht it might not work. As it might not work for the woman for whom the preganncy is a death sentnece.  So you are baswically playing Russian roulette with the lives of women.  Is that the natural law?

Adriana,

Natural Family Planning (NFP) - which is what the Church recognizes as family planning - is NOT contraception. There’s a BIG difference! And the difference is in the mentality, the disposition of one’s soul, which is the premise of this article: What is the disposition of the heart? It’s not about externals (i.e. what laws I obey and do I obey them to the letter of the law) but about internals (i.e. what does what I’m doing say about my relationship with God). If, for instance, I do everything that “the law” says, but my heart is not in the right place, then I’ve done nothing to enhance my relationship with God. That’s the fulfillment of Jesus.

Apply this to people who use contraception: The act is a sterile act, which is a rejection of a person’s normal bodily function. The people who practice NFP DO NOT have to worry about that because they are ALWAYS open to life because it might just be that a person may become pregnant - even during a woman’s non-fertile period. Just like a woman may become pregnant using contraception because the condom an the pill and IUDs are not 100% preganancy-proof. The difference is that those who practice NFP are ALWAYS open to life (disposition of the heart). Those who practice contraception have a “heart” problem… They need a “heart” transplant - nad Jesus is the Divine Surgeon.

Contraception in a sexual act is ALWAYS used for evil purposes because it’s sinful. The desired intention may be a good one (i.e. sexual unity between spouses). But, the means are not. The ends do not justify the means. And sin begins in the heart. That’s why Jesus always spoke about the law being written in your hearts - not on stone/paper.

The argument of poverty in other countries, like Latin American countries, is a bogus argument because: 1) poverty is not caused by lack of contraception; 2) a new life is ALWAYS a blessings - even if they die within 6 months because of malnutrition. Although that’s not the ideal, the life is still received lovingly by those families. Let me ask you this: is it better for a newborn to be received into a family who is economically disadvanted but the child feels loved, or is it better for a child who is born into a wealthy family but he/she gets rejected because they were “not planned/unwanted” and the parents - because they have the means to - send the kid off to boarding school?

One’s life is sacred - from conception ‘til death - whether they die in the womb or die of malnutrition or disease in later life, whether they live for one minute or they live 99 years. To think that one’s life does not have dignity because it is born into an impoverished family is simply not in conjuction with Christian teaching.

And although we have to do our best to help the poor and lower poverty, it does NOT START by handing out contraception. A good beginning - and solution - would be to: 1) wait to have sex when you’re married; 2) receive an education where Jesus in the center of your academic formation - not atheism. There is a big push in the academic elites of this country do remove God out of academia. And that’s not objective science. The goal of science is to arrive at truth - no matter where it may be found. That’s why if you study the natural law, you will eventually arrive at the conclusion that God exists. And contrary to “modern science”, Truth is not a something: It is a someBODY - Jesus!!!

Thanks Mark.  Helpful.

Rafael, NFP is contraception. It is acting on information not available to others who when they have sex are actually gambling. You may next be saying that insider trading is no crime, because playing the market is a licit activity. But it is, and people go to jail for it.

You make unwarranted assumtions about the mental processes of thsoe who use that method, and those who use competing methods, but unless you have mind reading abilities, accept that people use these thing for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, some indifferent.

The point that “you might actually conceive” using NFP is certainly great news for a woman who is told that another pregnancy may cripple or kill her.  For her sex with NFP is Russian Roulette, and that you seem to think that it is OK to gamble thus with other people’s lives makes me wonder about your mental process.  Of course, the woman may swear off sex rfor the rest of her life. And when the husband wants sex, what then?  Gamble with her life? Or tell him that he is free to commit adultery?  Or just hire a prostitute?

As for the way people in poverty behave, well, since they are a sizeable part of the global population, we might consider what are the effects of trhying to mold them into habits that we can afford in our comfortable lives, but that might mean disaster for them.  Just because you can occasionally sleep late and miss work, and have it as a sick day,  does not mean that you should encourage someone with a more fragile job than yours to do the same.  Not everyone can afford your standards.

Greetings in Christ, Mark!

James Swan has picked up on this post in a post of his own, titled, “Roman Catholic Confusion on Contraception in the Bible.”  He highlighted the place where you say that “you are right that the common Catholic reliance on this passage as a proof text against contraception or masturbation is a weak one and wrong-headed.”  And he is using it as a weapon against the unity of Christ’s Church.  I know that you and I agree on the one faith of Christ, and that we would worship together in the same congregation if we were local to one another.  But I would still like to take this weapon of division out of the way.

You are making the care of widows the focus of Genesis 38 by saying that “children were the sole ‘social safety net’ that widows had,” and you come back to this main point in your response to George; but the care of widows is something separate from situations involving heirs and inheritance rights.  When these latter types of situations arise, the Biblical texts explicitly state that providing offspring and preserving property is done, not for the sake of the widow, but for the sake of the father or deceased brother who has no heir (cf. Genesis 38, Numbers 27:1-11, Numbers 36, Deuteronomy 25:5-10).  The actual care of widows, on the other hand, gains its mention when social philanthropy is in view (cf. Exodus 22:21-24; Deuteronomy 24:17-22).

The Book of Ruth helps us to illustrate this distinction.  In keeping with the statutes of the Law of Moses, Boaz provides for the needs of Ruth without approaching her in marriage (cf. Ruth 2), and when she later approaches him, he perceives that she is the one extending great kindness to him (cf. Ruth 3:10)!  And when the redeemer is to take Ruth, Boaz describes it as being done, not in order to care for a widow, but “in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance” (Ruth 4:5)… “that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place” (Ruth 4:10).

But let us admit that the care of widows is of concern, because it certainly is.  And let us admit that the patriarchal family line is of concern, because it, too, certainly is.  But there is another concern that is fundamental to both of these: the new creation of life made in the image of God and of man (cf. Genesis 1:27; 5:3).  The positive command to “be fruitful and multiply” had already been given to Onan’s forefathers more than once (Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:1, 7); and to Onan’s very own grandfather God had said, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 35:11)—and He says this after Jacob had already fathered eleven sons and a daughter!  Every sex act that is detailed for us in Scripture leading up to [and following] Onan was, as far as we know, not contracepted.  And some unions were undertaken, we know, for the sole purpose of conception (cf. Genesis 16:2; Augustine goes into some detail concerning Rachel and Leah with Jacob in Against Faustus, Bk. 22).  Even Lot’s incest (Genesis 19:30-36) and Judah’s prostituted sex (cf. Genesis 38:18) were open to life!  And in keeping with this openness to life, these two men were left to live!  :)  Jacob rightly discerned that causing infertility was something reserved to God’s hands alone: “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Genesis 30:2)  Onan stands out like a sore seed-spiller!  :)

If Levirate marriages are designed—as with all marriages—with the primary purpose of raising up “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15), then how can we say that God’s loathing of contraception is not squarely located in Genesis 38, when contraception itself is directly opposed to this very purpose of the sex act?

As I shared on James Swan’s blog, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves (cf. Leviticus 19:18), and, as Paul says, “no one ever hated his own flesh” (Ephesians 5:29).

If it was sinful for Onan to do what he did in order to prevent the conception of his firstborn son for the sake of his brother Er, and if the love of self serves as a basis and bar for the love of neighbor, then all the more is it sinful and disordered for us to take similar actions in order to prevent the conception of our own children.  Therefore, I think that Augustine’s interpretation, as quoted by Pius XI, is correct. :)

Having considered these thoughts, do you still think that Pope Pius and Augustine’s understanding of this text is “weak” and “wrongheaded”?  I hope to have persuaded you, my brother!  :)

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment.

With love in Christ,
Pete Holter

Posted by Adriana on Friday, Mar 16, 2012 10:27 PM (EST)
“The point that ‘you might actually conceive’ using NFP is certainly great news for a woman who is told that another pregnancy may cripple or kill her.  For her sex with NFP is Russian Roulette, and that you seem to think that it is OK to gamble thus with other people’s lives makes me wonder about your mental process.  Of course, the woman may swear off sex rfor the rest of her life. And when the husband wants sex, what then?”

Relax, Adriana. Rafael’s got it covered.

Posted by Rafael on Friday, Mar 16, 2012 8:17 AM (EST):
“. . . 2) a new life is ALWAYS a blessings - even if they die within 6 months because of malnutrition.”

Similarly, a pregnancy is always a blessing even if it kills both the fetus and the mother of other small children. Because the only important thing is going to heaven. And this is a totally rational position for someone who believes in the existence of the Catholic God. It’s as rational as using your weekly food allowance to buy what you KNOW is the winning lottery ticket. What is fasting for one week compared to a lifetime payoff? Along the same lines, what is dying young compared to eternal happiness with God? It’s nothing. Just a quick blip of suffering that fades to nothing when set against enjoying the presence of God forever.

It’s funny to this atheist how reluctant many fervent Catholics are to say this kind of thing out loud. Instead they bleat about how users of the pill are at greater risk of breast cancer.  But Rafael does not suffer from this reluctance to renounce happiness on earth to achieve immortal life in heaven. He is able to put your early death due to a fatal pregnancy in perspective.

Rejoice!

Adriana, (cowalker thanks for props)

“NFP is contraception. It is acting on information not available to others who when they have sex are actually gambling. You may next be saying that insider trading is no crime, because playing the market is a licit activity. But it is, and people go to jail for it.”

NFP is NOT contraception because the MENTALITY is not the same. You CANNOT compare the two different mentalities: one pro-life, the other contra-life. EVERYTIME you have sex it’s a gamble because contraception is NOT 100%. Insider trading involves a moral behavior, which is why you can judge the action to be wrong: you’re arriving at a moral conclusion. There’s no difference here.

“You make unwarranted assumtions about the mental processes of thsoe who use that method, and those who use competing methods, but unless you have mind reading abilities, accept that people use these thing for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad, some indifferent.”

Morality does not change: There is an OBJECTIVE right and wrong which has ALWAYS existed. Your thoughts may change, but morality does not. I cannot judge someone’s intent for using a particluar method. But, intent does not outweigh consequence. If I steal with the intent of arriving at a good, someone might argue for me and say that I should not be judged for stealing. However, that does not absolve me from the sin: I still committed a sin and I need to make reparations for that.

“The point that ‘you might actually conceive’ using NFP is certainly great news for a woman who is told that another pregnancy may cripple or kill her.  For her sex with NFP is Russian Roulette, and that you seem to think that it is OK to gamble thus with other people’s lives makes me wonder about your mental process.  Of course, the woman may swear off sex rfor the rest of her life. And when the husband wants sex, what then?  Gamble with her life? Or tell him that he is free to commit adultery?  Or just hire a prostitute?

EVERY pregnancy is a risk. There’s NO SUCH THING as a pregnancy that is risk-free. To involve no risk would mean to NEVER have sex. And unless you’re planning of practicing abstinence for the rest of your life, then there will always be a risk when engaging in sex. The difference is that woman who practice true Christianity have one ingredient that is missing from those who do not: faith.

AS for your comment on adultery, consider the following:

Biblical, historial Jesus to the woman cuaght in adultery:

“Go, and sin no more.”

Progressive, Marxist, Liberation-theology “Jesus” to the woman caught in adultery:

“Go, and have an abortion. Go, and use contraception…birth control.”

“As for the way people in poverty behave, well, since they are a sizeable part of the global population, we might consider what are the effects of trhying to mold them into habits that we can afford in our comfortable lives, but that might mean disaster for them.  Just because you can occasionally sleep late and miss work, and have it as a sick day,  does not mean that you should encourage someone with a more fragile job than yours to do the same.  Not everyone can afford your standards.”

From my hypothetical about the two families, I guess you are more in favor of the wealthy family “starving” their child of love. It’s funny how you refer to them as my “standards” when it’s exaclty the reverse. These are the standards of the elite. The Christian understands that there is ALWAYS going to be poverty. Therefore, it’s more important that we nourish their soul simultaneously. What good is it to nourish the body and kill the soul? Jesus say to be careful for the one who kills the body AND the soul. Our spiritual needs are as imperative as our bodily needs. And we cannot detach the 2. So, as we work on reducing poverty, we also evangelize (i.e. teach about the danger of sin). We don’t nourish the body while encouraging one to act sinful. That’s counterproductive.