Wasting seed

Gen 38:8-10 is a traditional prooftext against "artificial" contraception (and masturbation). But what exactly is Onan's sin? According to one interpretation, "wasting seed" is a grave or mortal sin. To put this in Thomistic natural law terms, "wasting seed" thwarts the natural telos of seminal fluid. There are, however, problems with that interpretation:

i) V9 adds a qualification. Not merely "wasting his seed", but for a particular reason. So intent is a necessary condition.

ii) If wasting seed per se is sinful, then that drastically restricts licit sexual intercourse. Having intercourse with a postmenopausal wife is "wasting seed". Having intercourse with a manifestly pregnant woman is "wasting seed".

Even during ovulation, only one, or rarely, two sperm will be able to fertilize the ovum. Most sperm are "wasted". They never reach the goal. 

iii) Ironically, if wasting seed per se is sinful, then this is a prooftext against "natural family planning". The husband is deliberately wasting his seed by intentionally limiting intercourse to infertile periods during his wife's cycle. By design, the couple is frustrating the natural teleology of semen.  A calculated effort to subvert and circumvent the biological goal of seminal fluid. What could be more wasteful than that? So this is a highly counterproductive text to defend "natural family planning" as the licit alternative to "artificial" contraception. 

This is where the rubber meets the, er, “infallible teaching”

What if “the Church” loses?

The Coming Roman Catholic Schism? What if “the Church” loses?

An editorial decision was made between the time that news of this article hit my inbox, and when it appeared at the website. The decision was: “remove the subhead” (circled in red at the right).

The reason for this is clear. The subhead is highly inflammatory. It’s highly challenging. The article, written by the Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. , who is pastor of Holy Family Church, New York, NY, and a canon lawyer, originally bore this subhead: “Fr. Gerald E. Murray looks ahead to an important Vatican meeting becoming a contentious battleground. That’s fine, as long as the Church wins”.

This is instructive. This is “the Church that Christ Founded™”. This is “the Church” against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.

And yet, some in the fold see the possibility of failure.

In this case, however, the stakes are far higher. In this case, it’s the whole, entire group of Bishops from a single, highly influential nation. (A nation where Cardinal Ratzinger and later Pope Ratzinger ought to have had, but evidently didn’t have, a certain moral influence).

How “Natural Family Planning” (NFP) fails in real life

I didn’t get invited to the Triablogue Triakit+ tournament, and I was surprised to see Andronikos and Junia still up when I got home from work, so I thought I’d post something controversial about sex to try to boil someone’s blood.

Christianity Today’s her*meneutics blog has an article on natural family planning that’s not very flattering toward that practice at all:

Bethany and Sam Torode divorced in 2009 after nine years of marriage, during which they had four children. Early in their marriage, the couple wrote a book called Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception, in which they argued that natural family planning (NFP) is the healthiest, most spiritually enriching contraceptive approach for Christians. …

The Torodes, as other NFP supporters do, argued in their book and here at Christianity Today that not only is NFP as effective as medical forms of birth control when done correctly (which admittedly requires knowledge and practice), but also makes for healthier marriages that more closely align with God’s purposes for husbands and wives. They believe NFP honors our God-given bodies and fertility cycles rather than manipulating them to suit our preferences. It makes each act of intercourse truly open to God’s procreative purpose for marriage. ...

The Torodes’ marriage did not last. But even before they divorced, they renounced NFP in a 2006 statement. They said that NFP can lead to guilt and frustration when the couple desires sex, but has to abstain, particularly given that many women are particularly interested in sex during ovulation. They argued that, rather than embracing God’s gift of the body, NFP can lead couples to reject physical intimacy, either because they don’t want to conceive, or because they are exhausted by raising children whose births may have been unplanned. (The statement is no longer easily accessible on the Internet, so I am paraphrasing based on a variety of sources that quote from it.)

Oh well. One can be assured that Andronikos and Junia didn’t practice NFP.