Neither does coitus interruptus.Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.
Every coitus ends in a withdrawal. That's the nature of things. How soon is too soon?
I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina.
Given the nature of things, not all makes it/stays there.
Then there is the question, given the nature of semen according to Aquinas, of the morality of not delievering it there according to natural law, i.e. forgoing marriage.
He has some interesting views on semen:
Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infusedhttp://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm
In fact, if you read the bible
Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.
He's come up before:
This is alwasy interesting:
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis. The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman. That is not what Onan did. He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.
I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him. Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't). Since I do not follow HV (at least in particulars), those who follow HV are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393). http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.
According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers
Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period. You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.
Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually. And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."
No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.
As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that. But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.
than the EO position, which basically ignores them
No, we just don't proof text from the Fathers, on this or any other issue. We stick with the overwhelming Fathers who exercised the discretion not to interject the opinions/attitudes of celibates (which can be very interesting, even to go into detail on what sexual positions are "moral" and why) into the intimate relations of the married, and held fast to the Apostolic Tradition that marriage is honorable and the marital bed undefiled. This consensus of discretion is embodied in the marriage rite, and the moral theology.
and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.
She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.
How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?
Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.
I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.
I can assure you it is not.
It closes one off from being "open to life."1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").
Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.
2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?
Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.
According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.1. Clarify and quote.
Done already, see above.
2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.
That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.
At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.
There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.
Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that.
The Spirit that animates St. Jerome is not the one in Humanae Vitae. You have to take your pic.
You are not.
With those who abhorred marriage. No, we are not.
How about "orally consumated sex"?The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.
The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.
I'm aware of some views on the matter: the penitentials call for life long penance for oral sex, but only seven years for premeditated murder.
I can't recall if it was Abelard, Anselm or someone else who embraced celibacy because of his abhorrence of the idea that semen and urine passed through the same passage. I guess he wasn't impressed with the design.
Not advocating any preferences. Just stating that the idea that "orally consumated sex" is worse than murder is absurd.
It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally.
According to your "design" theory, it doesn't even get to that: it shouldn't be in the mouth or doing anything at all.
That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.
The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:
Letter of Barnabas
"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).
There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period. It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.
Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.
I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.
St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.So?
So where did you get it?