That's true about the brother of the deceased husband and his role in carrying on the bloodline, but this was Mosaic law, divine law, especially for the role of populating Israel.
I thought Augustine made it pretty clear. Here's one quote (apologies if this was quoted already--I don't remember):
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife."
I wouldn't expect many in here to take Augustine's words with anything but a grain of salt -- his words mean nothing to most people here, but at the very least, it should be looked at as food for thought because he makes a jarring statement that a husband and wife who engage sexually with absolutely no consideration of procreation are not truly husband and wife. He means that in devoted sense of course, not a literal one.
Again, I'm really not arguing that sex isn't a versatile experience. I've been saying that this entire time. Sex isn't only about procreation. It's really not. But every time sex is performed, there must always be an openness to it, not even simply because you want a child every time, but because you honor your wife's or husband's procreative as part of them. Once you block that part of the spouse off, then you've just made it clear that you only want them partially, not entirely. It becomes less giving and more taking (as apposed to accepting).
We may be reaching our limit soon, but I don't want to block off anyone's responding comment if they have one first.
I do think you err in your thinking here Lysander.
Though I am a protestant and not an RCC adherent. I am interested in what Augustine thought and wrote. His (and some others) writings give us an insight into the forces that were shaping the early Church. That does not mean however that I place upon his writings the blanket honour of being divinely inspired. I believe it is incumbent on us all to weigh what these men thought and wrote against the recognized canon of scripture.
For most protestants that canon of course excludes the deuterocanonical books, so with that in mind, I conclude that he is expressing a view which does not appear to have the support of the recorded teachings of Jesus. Indeed it is, or ought to be a point of significance needing consideration and mention that of all the recorded (important) teachings of Jesus touching on marriage, not once are children mentioned as a necessary product of marriage, nor is their avoidance mentioned. It is not as though He never had the opportunity to teach against contraception or of the binding necessity of procreation.
Now this avoidance of conception is that not what you have spoken of in connection with salvation? How is this Lysander that the very person who came to save us never ever once mentioned it?
At this point as a protestant I need to decide which boat I should sail in; SS Jesus or VSS Augustine? SS Jesus has mighty trustworthy life buoys; enough for all passengers who will sail with Jesus.
I know of no such life buoys being supplied on the VSS Augustine. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which ship I have booked passage on.
I note and suggest therefore from reading Augustines words as you have supplied that it would seem perfectly reasonable to understand that he was aware of the practice by some women of practicing some form of contraceptive measure, even way back then. In fact his mention of poison seems to allude to the practice of using certain plant extract that are very anti life. He says in part "
they even procure poisons of sterility"
Proof enough for me that contraception is not a new practice.
So Lysander, I for one have weighed what Augustine has said in your quoted material about the evils contraception within a marriage against the teachings of Jesus on this matter.
I do however agree that any practice that aborts a pregnancy it wrong...absolutely. Murder for convenience can never be right. That said, any method that is contraceptive (against conception, against fertilization) is not instructed against in Scripture. No, not even Onan, but you or anyone can read my take on that without my restating it.
You closed your post with
He means that in devoted sense of course, not a literal one.
It takes a very long stretch to make that conclusion from Augustine's words. Where he wrote ...
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. ..." colour and underline emphasis added
It is clear that no amount of 'white wash' can cover the intent of his words He clearly discounts any degree of respectability for a couple who practice purposeful and deliberate contraception.
