Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not an intrinsic evil.

[Rebekka]

I think the intention of circumcision is therapeutic, no?

In the US for non-jews it may be, although it is indeed debatable (Dutch doctors advise against it). But over here it is done mostly for religious reasons (jews and muslims).

I know that it's necessity or effectiveness is debated, but I don't think it would be sinful if done in good conscience for therapeutic reasons. Since Jewish people have kids, I am assuming it doesn't make one unfit for natural function...

Ah... natural function.... tricky, because one of the functions of the penis is to enjoy sex, and I've heard that circumcision makes one less sensitive so it could diminish pleasure. But at least "natural function" is more precise than the vague "you shouldn't alter what God designed" (which would make tattoos problematic as well).

As to eunuchs, off the top of my head, the Bible mentions those born that way and those made so by men. It also notes:

Deuteronomy 23:1
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

That's all I can think of. Do you know of a passage that says its ok to make people physical eunuchs?

No, I don't know of such a passage, I only knew of the born-so and man-made eunuchs from the NT. Hence my question. It seemed to me that eunuchdom at least wasn't directly condemned, but it might be, I don't know.

 

[Fantine]

But think of the castrati choirs--active from the 16th through the 18th century--and, I just learned, formed because the Church didn't allow women to sing in the Vatican choir.

Poor children. Victims of prejudice against women. Mutilated because of prejudice against women....

In this respect, they were even greater victims than the women who were excluded. At least they escaped with their bodies intact.

I guess those mutilation directives may not have been in effect then.

The golden age of castrati lasted for two centuries, from the beginning of the 17th Century to the dawn of the 19th Century. Officially admitted into the Papal choir from 1599, they performed in all large towns throughout Italy. First, they sang exclusively in religious choirs, however, they soon became used in musical dramas. In the 18th Century, a musical form known as "Opera Seria" was created for them. The last castrato, Alessandro Moreschi died in 1922.

The usual explanation given to justify the use of castrati was that women were forbidden to sing in church choirs or theatres in the papal states. However, their vocal supremacy was the real reason for their extraordinary popularity. They were frequently described as having the 'voice of angels'.

CASTRATI

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

But think of the castrati choirs--active from the 16th through the 18th century--and, I just learned, formed because the Church didn't allow women to sing in the Vatican choir.

Poor children. Victims of prejudice against women. Mutilated because of prejudice against women....

In this respect, they were even greater victims than the women who were excluded. At least they escaped with their bodies intact.

I guess those mutilation directives may not have been in effect then.



CASTRATI

From the very same article you provide:

Whilst castration prevented the voice from breaking, it did not ensure that the voice created was one of pure gold. There is no doubt that most castrati never rose beyond the rank of choir-boy in church choirs. Worse still, although no statistics exist, historical research suggests that operations were frequently unsuccessful.


In Italy, in particular, the castration of young, usually poor, choir-boys was very common. Poor families offered their sons for considerable financial reward. However, few families admitted that they had deliberately had their son castrated. Medical alibis, such as a riding accident, an accidental blow, an animal bite, were used to explain the reason for the castration.

 

[QuantaCura]

Canon law at the time condemned castration and those who were caught performing the surgery were generally excommunicated. Church choirs did accept castrati who were castraded through some accident or whatever, which, as Brooklyn Knight mentions, led to people still being castrated and just lying about the circumstances. Regrettably, those responsible for the choirs conveniently took the claimants at their word.

 

[FearlessFreep]

When the Church talks about contraception being intrinsically evil it's in the context of when a validly married couple is trying to prevent conception in their marriage by artificial means since this impedes both the unitive and procreative aspect of marriage. If a condom is used by a prostitute, the use of a condom to prevent conception or disease in that specific context would not be the sinful part of the act since a condom is a step in the direction of separation of our body from that of the prostitute, and Christ teaches that we shouldn't join our body to a prostitute in the first place. But if a prostitute does get pregnant then that's when it's a new innocent life that should be protected no matter if it was conceived from a sinful act.

 

[Fantine]

Budweiser puts up signs in convenience stores every fall: "Hunters--drink responsibly."

Casinos put signs on their doors: "Gamblers, gamble responsibly."

They both mean the same thing: "Sin--but do it responsibly."

So Fearless are you then saying that the same should apply for sexual behavior?

Just curious. I'm not judging you. In my relatively tame by today's standard youth, I opted for sinning responsibly, and I'm sure I saved myself, my husband, and my family a lot of grief in the process. I know that the Church would disagree, but sinning responsibly made the road back a lot easier because I didn't have anywhere near as deep a pit to crawl out of.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Budweiser puts up signs in convenience stores every fall: "Hunters--drink responsibly."

Casinos put signs on their doors: "Gamblers, gamble responsibly."

They both mean the same thing: "Sin--but do it responsibly."

Except, if you do these moderately, they are not a sin. So...what's the problem? You really want to say someone who enjoys a shot of vodka or a glass of wine, or someone who buys an occasional scratch off is - in fact - sinning?

I guess Christ Himself was a bit of a contradiction when He turned water to wine with regards to the marriage at Cana.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Except, if you do these moderately, they are not a sin. So...what's the problem? You really want to say someone who enjoys a shot of vodka or a glass of wine, or someone who buys an occasional scratch off is - in fact - sinning?

I guess Christ Himself was a bit of a contradiction when He turned water to wine with regards to the marriage at Cana.

Catholic church has Bingo. That is gambling by any definition of the word. I do the scratch tickets and play the occasional number. I like my beers and enjoy a nice cigar.

 

[MikeK]

Budweiser puts up signs in convenience stores every fall: "Hunters--drink responsibly."

Casinos put signs on their doors: "Gamblers, gamble responsibly."

They both mean the same thing: "Sin--but do it responsibly."

Neither gambling nor drinking in moderation are sins, and we should encourage those who, while they profit off gambling or drinking, encourage moderation and responsibility.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Except, if you do these moderately, they are not a sin. So...what's the problem? You really want to say someone who enjoys a shot of vodka or a glass of wine, or someone who buys an occasional scratch off is - in fact - sinning?

I guess Christ Himself was a bit of a contradiction when He turned water to wine with regards to the marriage at Cana.

I thought you were a Catholic ? I just noticed the "seeker" makes no difference to me, just asking. I get harassed because I don't have an ornate cross.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Catholic church has Bingo. That is gambling by any definition of the word. I do the scratch tickets and play the occasional number. I like my beers and enjoy a nice cigar.

Ah, Bingo. Another good example would be all those various Church raffles.

Personally, I love playing Texas hold 'em. That is until I lose.

I thought you were a Catholic ? I just noticed the "seeker" makes no difference to me, just asking. I get harassed because I don't have an ornate cross.

Stuck in limbo, my friend. Need to reeducate myself with regards to Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Stuck in limbo, my friend. Need to reeducate myself with regards to Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

Just consider one simple fact, the Catholic Church is the only one with Peter whom Christ gave the keys of his authority to. The Orthodox Church is legit when it comes to apostolic succession and the 7 sacraments, but they don't have Peter.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Just consider one simple fact, the Catholic Church is the only one with Peter whom Christ gave the keys of his authority to. The Orthodox Church is legit when it comes to apostolic succession and the 7 sacraments, but they don't have Peter.

That is true, but the Catholic Church is also guilty of quite a few missteps (Which begs the question if the Holy Spirit is still present and leads in the Vatican) and some in the congregation are anything but saintly.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Ah, Bingo. Another good example would be all those various Church raffles.

Personally, I love playing Texas hold 'em. That is until I lose.



Stuck in limbo, my friend. Need to reeducate myself with regards to Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

Peace on your journey, seek and follow Christ with all your heart and he will lead you to his truth.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is true, but the Catholic Church is also guilty of quite a few missteps (Which begs the question if the Holy Spirit is still present and leads in the Vatican) and some in the congregation are anything but saintly.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in matters of faith and morals.

Public policy, it's the individual Pope's and Bishops who definitely have made huge sins.

But the Church will always have the fullness of truth on matters of faith.

That being said, should not be the reason a person chooses Catholicism.

They only reason a person should choose Catholicism is because they are drawn to Jesus Christ and seek a closer relationship with him, which the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist provides.

Nice to have you in the forum BTW.

Jim

 

[WarriorAngel]

I thought the purpose behind no contraception was partly in Jeremiah and Psalms...
That GOD has created each of us before we hit the womb - aka - we were His vision - His thought - His Fiat and we must exist because He determines we must exist.
I thought this was the morality of no contraception.

I thought this is why it is evil to undo what He deems should be done. IE - even in rape - God can produce a child that He wishes to raise up and become a priest, a Bishop, a doctor - or whatever.

God can make good ceme from anything - if the act is evil - the child is still able to be a useful servant of His - if He allows conception in the 1st place. Most often it doesnt happen since women under such stress dont often ovulate. OR so said a doctor [or more] on the matter.

Now - this whole topic has me confused.

 

[MikeK]

Lots of Doctors of the Church have made statements which are either only partially true or even false. When contraception has been spoken against by infallible authority, it has been done so in the specific context of the marital or conjugal act - and that excludes rape. It's all well explained by a few linked pieces in this thread.

If one takes a strict reading WA, a rape victim would be committing a grave sin if she writhed and kicked a rapist off of her immediately prior to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. That woman in a conjugal act would be guilty of contracepting by onanism. Thankfully, that is not the case, a rape victim has no duty to allow the aggressor to complete the act, nor does she have a duty post-rape to twiddle her thumbs for days waiting for conception to happen.

 

[Elysium]

also the fathers thought sperm contained a whole person
and the uterus was just s place for it to grow
so that is why they thought contraception = abortion
now we have better knowledge of science and we know that not all contraceptives cause mini abortions
so when people quote the fathers and the didache and stuff i think they need to take that stuff in context
sure they said some things were wrong, but their reasoning wss false so its dishonest to use thhat as justification
but now since we know science we know the actual reasons why some contraception is evil to use
mini abortions

 

[Fantine]

also the fathers thought sperm contained a whole person
and the uterus was just s place for it to grow
so that is why they thought contraception = abortion

Ugh! I will try to have a forgiving heart and attribute it to ignorance rather than misogyny.

But it makes me wonder in what ways the "Fathers" think of women as "surrogates" today.

 

[MikeK]

Ugh! I will try to have a forgiving heart and attribute it to ignorance rather than misogyny.

But it makes me wonder in what ways the "Fathers" think of women as "surrogates" today.

If not "a place for the baby to grow", what is the uterus? Where is the specific misogyny you think you might see? Why do you put Fathers in quotations?