No, I don’t ‘get it.’ The Roman theory of marriage as sacrament and prohibition on contraception is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and certain of the fathers such as Clement - it’s rooted in the notion of what is ‘natural’ vs. what is ‘unnatural.’
Humans are equipped for sex not only as an instrument of procreation, but for pleasure as well. A great deal of sex takes place in the animal kingdom that is non-procreative but for purposes of conflict resolution or avoidance, food exchange and it would seem, simply, pleasure.
Beyond that - take a look at St. Paul in his instructions to the Corinthian Church regarding celibacy and chastity. Paul certainly roots his opinions in a companionate view of marriage. Contraceptives were known in the ancient near east, but their is no mention of the practice of pregnancy prevention in the New Testament.
Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands? The issue, as Rome has framed it and as it exists in classical Roman theology, is that sex without the possibility of procreation, is sin.
Are condoms de facto immoral? Should spermicidal jelly or condoms, for instance, be made more available in Africa with its high rate of heterosexual AIDS? Can a married couple practice anal sex, fellatio or cunninglingus? Must a married couple in financial straits remain celibate if they feel they could not support a child? For them to utilize any means that would avoid conception is immoral? Such a view is simply silly and unbiblical. I feel sorry for the folk who reduce married sex to simply a guilt-ridden instrument of procreation and rob it of its depth and richness within the covenant of marriage. The author of Hebrews enjoins us to honor the marriage bed without any qualification, without reference to procreation. The Song of Solomon celebrates a lusty sexuality between a man and a woman, quite explicit in the Hebrew, without any reference to procreation - the human body, the lover, is celebrated for his or her own sake.
Marriage is a covenant of companions and exists for its own sake, not merely for the purpose of procreation. In the archetypal story of Genesis, God creates Eve not for the birthing of a child, but as Adam’s helpmate, his companion.
The social sciences, human experience, common sense and Christian theology stand againt Rome’s opposition to family planning. Happily, most American Catholics disregard Rome’s teaching on this matter.
Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands?Sure we can. In fact we have. The answer is yes. The Catholic Church teaches BOTH uses of the marital act, procreation and mutual pleasure. That you keep pretending otherwise reflects on you and your men of straw.
I'm not sure that's exactly right. Sexual intercourse when the possibility of conception has been deliberately precluded by artificial means is a no-no.
“The Roman theory of marriage as sacrament and prohibition on contraception is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and certain of the fathers such as Clement - it’s rooted in the notion of what is ‘natural’ vs. what is ‘unnatural.’”
Is that the sort of nonsensical drivel that is taught in protestant seminaries?