November 18, 2004
Birth Control and God: Is Contraception Bad?
There’s been a lot of discussion on this blog and on others I’m reading about birth control and how it relates to God, so I thought I would address it as comprehensively as possible on a blog (in other words, I’ll try to keep it short!).
Several people who are reading this probably have never even heard the suggestion that there is a problem with contraception (I use “contraception” and “birth control” interchangeably). The debate centers on whether or not God approves of contraception. Until 1930, all Christian churches universally condemned contraception. In 1930, the Anglican Church first suggested that contraception could be used within marriage for grave reasons. Over the next 40 years, virtually all protestant churches abandoned their condemnation of birth control and began accepting it as a normal part of life (most did this around 1960, when the Birth Control Pill and feminist theology began gaining traction). At this point (as far as I know), the Catholic Church is the only Christian church to retain the traditional view that birth control is immoral.
On a side note, the Birth Control Pill can cause abortions, which is still pretty much universally condemned by Christian churches. For this argument, I’ll assume we can agree that the Pill is intrinsically evil simply because of the possibility of an abortion exists.
The Bible and Marriage
But what you first want to know is: what does the Bible say about Birth Control? There are a few paths we can take here, but to keep it short I’ll focus on the most obvious. I’ll make the assumption (and I think we can agree on it) that a child is always a gift from God (Gen 33:5, Ps 127:3-5, Prov 17:6, Luke 1:8-38) and only God can open and close the womb (Gen 20:18, Gen 29:31, Jer 1:5, Job 31:15, Luke 1:31, Gal 1:15).
Now, what does the Bible say about marriage, children and contraception? From the beginning, God commands us to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28) – in fact, this is the first command God gives after creating man and woman. And this so important that God repeats this blessing to Noah in Gen 9:1 – again as the first command after the flood. There was no end date given, except to “fill the earth” (at this point the earth is nowhere near full).
Marriage in many ways mimics God as the Trinity. The love of the father and the son is so strong, that it resulted in a third person, the Holy Spirit (Eph 3:15). In the same way, a love between husband and wife is so strong it results in children, which are new, eternal persons created by God (Jer 1:5). In the Bible, a “fruitful” wife is actually a blessing from God (Psalms 128:1, 3-4), rather than a problem to be controlled. All these verses paint a picture of marriage, but does Scripture specifically mention birth control?
The Bible and Birth Control
Now we get to Onan. I think it’s important to start by understanding the levirate marriage:
Deuteronomy 25:5-9. “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. . . And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face . . .”
This is the levirate law. Essentially, you can refuse to marry your brother’s wife, but you have to suffer what amounts to public humiliation. This law was enforced even in the time of Christ (see Matt 22:23-28). This is the situation facing Onan:
Genesis 38:8-10. Then 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 into his brother’s wife he spilled the semen onto 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.
God killed Onan for what he “did” according to Scripture, but what exactly did Onan do? According to the passage, Onan married his brother’s wife (per the levirate law) and assumed all of his property and possessions. Then Onan practiced Onanism (the common term for birth control) by pulling out during sexual intercourse. In other words, he enjoyed the physical gratification of sex within marriage, but did not want the natural outcome of intercourse. And God killed him, which shows the seriousness of the offense.
This is the passage used for 1,900 years to prove birth control was a mortal sin. In order to get around this, you have to suggest that Onan did something else wrong. Often the answer is that Onan didn’t fulfill the levirate law. However, if God simply wanted him to provide a child at some point (he was married to the woman now), wouldn’t have God waited? In other words, killing him for not providing a child on the first attempt seems unjust. Onan could have refused to marry the woman and simply suffered public humiliation. What did Onan do to merit the death penalty (and no opportunity to repent)? The only answer available is that he practiced a form of birth control. In fact, every Scriptural instance of someone enjoying the pleasure of sex while ensuring that a child cannot result is deemed worthy of the death penalty – see Lev 20:13-18.
But is this just an Old Testament teaching?
The New Testament and Birth Control
No, it’s not. The Greek word pharmakeia is used three times in the New Testament (Galatians 5:19-26, Revelations 9:21, and Revelations 21:8). This word is often translated as “murder” or “sorcery,” but it has always referred to drugs that either prevent pregnancy or result in an abortion (it’s interesting that these are considered equivalent so that only one word is used). These are condemned by St. Paul and St. John using the harshest of language.
In no uncertain terms, the Bible does not approve of the use of Birth Control. Why does this matter to God? Because contraception results in a lie, and lies are always sinful.
The Lie of Birth Control
This goes along with the rationale behind the fact that sex is sinful outside of marriage. Why? Because the sexual act is both procreative (life-giving) and unitive (love-giving):
Humanae Vitae 12. The doctrine which the Magisterium of the Church has often explicated is this: There is an unbreakable connection between the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning of the conjugal act, and both are inherent in the conjugal act. This connection was established by God and cannot be broken by man through his own volition.
In other words, sex is the complete self-giving of one person to another – it is the opposite of selfishness. This is why it must be within marriage, since only after giving your life to the other person can you completely give yourself to them sexually.
Birth control, thus, is a lie because it says to the other person, “I’m willing to give you all of me except for my procreative ability.” It makes sex selfish, rather than self-giving and removes the permanence from the act. You are physically giving yourself to another in a way more sacred than saying “I love you,” but by using birth control you are preventing the most intimate part of yourself from being shared with another person. Real sex involves giving everything you have to your spouse – the two become one in such a concrete way that another person might be formed:
“To engage in an act of contracepted sexual intercourse is to engage in an act that has the potential for creating new life and the potential for creating tremendous emotional bonds between male and female, and simultaneously to undercut those potentials. Sex is for babies and for bonding: if people are not ready for babies or bonding, they ought not to be engaging in acts of sexual intercourse.” - - Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine.
Natural Family Planning vs. Contraception
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is often seen as the “Catholic birth control.” However, this is a mistaken notion of NFP. First, NFP cannot be used as contraception. I know what you’re thinking, “What? Isn’t that the point?” Contraception is always a sin. Period. NFP can only be used to space children in serious circumstances:
CCC 2368. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality
In other words, it is always sinful for a husband and wife to decide they won’t have any more children, even if they use NFP to achieve this. You can only use NFP to space children if you have a valid reason that is not selfish. For example, if both husband and wife are out of work and uninsured, it would be okay to practice NFP in order to space out children. But, if you simply want time to travel or save money (and you’re not financially strapped), then any form of contraception is sinful.
So, clearly, there are other aspects to the Catholic position that make NFP different than contraception. But the U.S. Catholic Bishops also point out a list of reasons why birth control cannot be used even with valid, unselfish reasons:
NFP methods are different from and better than artificial contraception because they:
- Cooperate with, rather than suppress, a couple's fertility
- Can be used both to achieve and avoid pregnancy
- Call for shared responsibility and cooperation by husband and wife
- Require spousal communication
- Foster respect for and acceptance of the total person
- Have no harmful side effects
- Are virtually cost free
NFP is unique because it enables its users to work with the body rather than against it. Fertility is viewed as a reality to live, not a problem to be solved.
Using NFP a couple must both work together to abstain during times when pregnancy is likely – this is far different from a couple which still enjoys the fun of sex while using barriers to try and prevent the natural outcome of sex. In other words, one couple must be selfless and the other is selfish. Also as the Bishops point out, NFP does not reduce women to sexual objects that can give gratification without any long-term consequences.
Practical ramifications of Birth Control
There is another reason Christians should be against birth control. By separating sexual acts from their natural procreative outcome, some barriers to sin are removed. For example before contraception, adultery had serious consequences that made those tempted less likely to indulge. Teenagers had to deal with the reality of sex and the seriousness of the act – now they can simply use contraception to allow their young lust the freedom it has not had in previous times.
In other words, the myth of “free sex” can destroy lives. Sex is inherently unitive and it bonds a man and a woman in a very intimate way. Even when two people have casual sex, there are emotional bonds created that have lifelong consequences. Sex was designed by God to bind a husband and wife more intimately within the bonds of marriage – this cannot be taken lightly. By removing contraception, a culture is forced to be more mindful of the realities of sex and the natural consequences of using sexuality, particularly outside of marriage.
“Those who argue that acts should be judged by their consequences should find reason for reconsidering their approval of contraception in the impact its widespread availability has had on society. Contraception has been a major factor allowing the so-called sexual revolution to rage, and this “revolution” has led to many unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Rather than liberating women, contraception has made them much more open to sexual exploitation by men. In fact, Humanae Vitae (17) predicted a general lowering of morality, should contraception become widely available. Certainly, such lowering can be seen in the epidemic of teenage pregnancies, veneral diseases, divorces, AIDS, etc.” - - Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine
A Form of Obedience
Finally, we are all called to be obedient to God. I often hear protestant preachers talk about tithing our money through obedience. They suggest that if you tithe, even if it’s more than you can really afford, that God will take care of your financial situation. If we believe this about money, why is it so hard to believe that God will take care of our reproductive abilities as well? If we completely trust in God, do we believe he will abuse that trust?
This goes right back to where we started. Only God can open the womb. Children are always a gift from God. In fact,
1 Timothy 2:15. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Your children can even save you. So, if only God can open the womb and give us the gift of a child, why don’t we trust Him with the responsibility? I have a good friend who lived in a foreign city for two years or so with very little money. During that time he was completely open to life, despite his financial situation, and yet God did not give him a child until the money situation started turning around. God is good and will take care of us in a much better way than we could ever do ourselves.
Final Thoughts
As a final thought, I want you to think about the parents you know who have older children. Have you ever heard one of them suggest, “We had too many kids” or “I wish we had stopped earlier”? I doubt it. In old age (and wisdom), people never regret having too many; it’s more likely that they would wish they had more.
Fertility is a reality of how God designed us, not a medical problem that must be treated. Freeing yourself from the burden of birth control and giving yourself completely to your spouse in marriage is a wonderful way to renew your vows. Trusting God not only with your money, but with your fertility, is a great way to develop a closer relationship with Christ. Contraception isn’t wrong because the Church says it’s wrong, it’s wrong because it bears no good fruit: it objectifies women, hurts martial relationships, and prevents God from giving you the gifts He desires. I hope you’ll consider trusting Him completely.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay,
I would like to be able to go into the archives, but it seems that that is no loneger an option. You used to have it arranged so that we could go back to October, Sept, Aug..etc.
Did you run out of space on the website, and are all the archives no unaccessible?
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at November 18, 2004 11:00 PMJeff,
You can search for whatever you're looking for on the top left. I moved the archives because I thought no one was using them, but I can add them back - perhaps this weekend I'll put them up again.
Thanks,
Jay
Jay,
I appreciate it. Thanks. God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at November 19, 2004 09:35 AMJay,
Two Points,
1. The scripture says "Onan knew the child would not be his". ( Could this be the reason ?)
Since the scripture does not say why God killed him any reason for that would be SPECULATION on our part. I believe the reason for spilling his seed was not because he didn't want children, but because he knew the first child he would have with this woman would not be considered his but his brothers according to the law. That much is clear from the scripture.
2. God knows our hearts. This sin was a sin in Onan's heart. He never said that he did NOT want children or that he did NOT want children with this woman. He knew that the child would not be his according to the law...
I don't feel this story has so much to do with contraception as it has to do with him not willing to fulfill his duty to his brother..
I believe this is one of the instances where the CHURCH takes a scripture and twists it to say or mean something it was not trying to say.
I don't think this is about contraception at all.
It is about not fulfilling his duty accoding to the law.
Respectfully, Your Brother in Christ,
Clem
Clem,
In other words, for 1,900 years everyone was wrong, but now Clem has it right! Remember, the Anglican church which first approved of contraception is now ordaining actively homosexual, divorced bishops. I assume you'll be explaining how the Church got this wrong as well in a few years . . .
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
So, You are saying this teaching about Onan
has always been the same from the beginning of the church? It has always been about contraception? Prove it...
Did the Jews understand this incident as God
speaking about contraception or did they understand this as an act of Onan NOT following the law of giving his brother an heir?
When did the church make this an official doctrine?
Jay I never said homosexuality was acceptable.
And I never will so Please don't be absurd and guess what my position will be in the future.
The way the scripture is CLEAR in the Old Testament and the New testament that homosexuality is abhorrent to GOD. So it is obvious the the Anglican church is in Error !
God's word is NOT clear on Contraception and the Onan story is a POOR scripture text to use as a
CLEAR text to PROVE that God is against contraception.
If that were the case then GOD would be against NFP TOO... The Catholic church has said that NFP
is acceptable. Has God? If you want to use Onan as a Proof text Jay then be consistant. If we are to go with your line of thinking and say that it is Proof against contraception then the
CATHOLIC CHURCH has ADDED to GOD's word by saying that NFP is acceptable.. What does scripture say about adding to or taking away from God's word...?
So if you want to stick with the stand that Onan is a Clear proof text against contraception then you MUST be consistant and say that NFP is also a form of contraception and is against God's word
too...
Either contraception is WRONG or it is NOT...
Show me the Proof Text where GOD says that NFP
is acceptable to him... The end result is the same... The couple is trying to take the choice out of God's hands and put the choice in their hands or else why practice it ?.... If the church is going to make a doctrine it should be consistant.
So the point of this story was not to show that Onan was disobeying the law and his obligation
to give his brother an heir? Hmm ..
In Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 20, 2004 12:48 PMClem,
Fifty years ago everyone agreed that Scripture was clear and the Anglican church was wrong . . . about Contraception!
I hope you read the article above, because I clearly addressed that we can never use any form of contraception. What we can do is space children for serious reasons by using NFP. I think the best way to explain NFP is to point at the differences in though between a contracepting couple and an NFP couple. The contracepting couple says, "We want to have sex and not worry about babies, so we'll use contraception and have sex whenever we want." This is a selfish position: I want sex and I don't want to worry about children. The NFP couple says, "We need to space children because of x reason, so we will abstain from sex for a small period of time each month to do so. This is a sacrifice for us, but we will do it because of our need to space children." Big difference between the two.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
I have read some articles from the Catholic chuch about contraception. If I am understanding it right, the Catholic Church says that NFP is ok. CCC2368 states "for just reasons." It is my understanding that the Catholic church is also for responsible parenting. These to statements sound like pro contraception. Is the Catholic church saying it is ok to sin? You stated "in other words, it is always sinful for a husband and wife to decided they won't have anymore children." God is pretty clear about sin in scripture. If I take what you have said about contraception to the natural extreme then a couple who decides to space children, using NFP, because of serious medical conditions, they are being responsible parents for just reasons but are sinning against God. Correct? I agree you shouldn't plan a child around selfish reasons. I have friends who won't have anymore children because they can only afford to send two through college. I don't agree with this reasoning because we don't know what tomorrow will hold. Anyway I am interested in what you have to say.
Kristie
test
Posted by: Thomas at November 22, 2004 02:26 PMKristie,
If you read the article above I cite the Catechism on this point. I am not saying that "a couple who decides to space children, using NFP, because of serious medical conditions" are sinning; I don't believe I suggested that above. The Catechism, in fact, states that it is not a sin to use NFP to space children if you have a serious reason.
I'm a little confused, so let me know if I didn't address your point. I did say that it is a sin to use NFP if you have no serious reason or intend to never have another child (which is contracepting with NFP). In other words, NFP can only be used in specific circumstances: to space children with a serious reason for doing so.
Finally, it's never okay to sin. Hope this helps.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Is not spacing children through NFP STILL taking the choice out of God's hands and putting it in the hands of the parents?
If as you said "We can mever use any form of contraception" Isn't NFP a non medical form of
contraception ? The result is the same. No
baby.
Does GOD excuse this spacing because the parents are abstaining from sex as a sacrifice?
If God is against contraception as you posted, and He considers it a sin, then why would he allow this sin for the purpose of spacing children ?
Are there scriptures to back up this exception
to the sin of all other forms of contraception?
I am aware of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, however that agreement to abstain is to devote themselves to prayer. It does not seem to be in the context of
spacing children, unless you want to read that into this scripture. Are there any other scriptures or is this a doctrine of the Church?
NFP still seems to be a form of contraception without calling it contraception.
You say that contraception is a sin, yet NFP
which is a natural form of contraception is okay ?
Very Confusing ...
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 22, 2004 09:30 PMAccording to Catholic teaching:
1. it is the couple's right to choose to plan their family because God gave them this right.
2. couples who abuse this right by choosing selfishly are sinning even if they use natural methods to achieve their ends.
3. couples who render the marital act infertile (artificial contraception) are also sinning regardless of whether they have chosen selfishly or not.
Humanae Vitae makes it very clear that couples with serious reason to avoid pregnancy should use natural methods which respect the integrity of the marital act.
While I respect the right of others to disagree with Catholic teachings, I fail to understand how, after all these discussions, the non-Catholic bloggers still do not even know what the Catholic teaching is.
Another way to look at it:
1. God requires us to respect the gift of fertility that he sends to women by not damaging it or the marital act. This rules out contraception but not Natural Family Planning.
2. God does not require couples to have marital relations when the woman is naturally fertile. (Though, as always, they should have good reason to do avoid pregnancy). Thus Natural Family Planning needs to be used in a context of trust in the Lord.
3. God does not require couples to abstain from marital relations when the woman is naturally infertile.
I suppose if Jay were to denounce these ideas as heretical, I could understand the present confusion over Catholic teaching, but I have trouble believing that I have been so consistently unclear.
Posted by: Broken Record at November 22, 2004 10:35 PMBroken Record,
I understand the Catholic teaching. A couple can practice NFP without sinning. IF a couple practices artificial contraception they are sinning. I get that. It is pretty clear.
What I don't understand is the Catholic churches Scriptural basis for the NFP exception. If they are concluding from various Non Specific scriptures that contraception is a sin in God's eyes, then how can they say that it is Not a sin to practice NFP. Aren't couples practicing NFP still practicing a form of contraception ?
I guess what I am trying to ask is, Is NFP really scriptural Or is this a teaching that the Catholic church came up with?
If God says something is a sin, then is it NOT a sin whether it is done Naturally or artificially ?
You say that God gave couples the right to choose
to plan their family. Where in scripture does He
state this right? Was the NFP method used in OT times?
Here is a really informative article from a Catholic source on Contraception. The author is a
Father Saunders. It gives a short history on the
subject of contraception. It is written in plain language and easy to understand.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM
Grace and Peace,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 23, 2004 08:46 AMJay,
Just curious. What is the RCC view on abortions for medical reasons?
Posted by: Jeff at November 23, 2004 01:27 PMClem, thanks for clearing up your question. You are wondering why the scriptural condemnation of contraception does not also condemn NFP.
As far as I can tell, the primary scripture is Genesis 38. Onan did two things: spilled his seed and failed to provide Tamar with offspring. Judah and Selah also failed to provide Tamar with offspring. Christians until recently have believed that Onan was slain for spilling seed not for failing his duty to Tamar. After all, Judah and Selah are not slain and the book of Leviticus hands out a very light sentence for failing one's duty to provide your dead brother with an heir.
I guess it boils down to two points:
1. God killed Onan because he spilled seed.
2. artificial contraception counts as spilling seed but NFP does not.
Which of the above two points do you reject?
Posted by: Broken Record at November 23, 2004 03:32 PMBroken Record,
I guess it would be #1. Didn't Judah provide Tamar with a child when she tricked him and played the harlot and he slept with her? She became pregnant. So although he was tricked in the end He still provided a child.
Since the scripture is NOT clear as to why God
considered this act a sin, I must go back to the
CLEARLY stated reason why Onan spilled his seed.
IT SAYS that he did this because he KNEW THAT THE
offspring Would NOT be His. It was NOT because he did NOT want Children, but because He knew the child would not be His. It seems more plausable to Me that God killed Onan for not fulfilling his duty to his brother.
The scripture NEVER says he did not want Children. It does say that he knew that if he did have children that the firstborn child would be his brothers heir and Not his...
So the contraception was not done because he was selfish and did not want ANY children. It was done to prevent his brother from having an heir.
In essence he stole his brothers wife and property because he did not fulfill his end of the agreement.
Is the point of this scripture really about contraception or is it about not doing his duty ?
I read it as not doing his duty.
Grace & Peace,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 23, 2004 04:24 PMClem,
Then you see God as unjust. Because Onan could have rejected his duty and suffered simply public humiliation, rather than death. Why was the way he rejected it so much worse than a normal rejection that it deserved death?
By the way, Scripture only explicitly mentions the sexual act when it must - otherwise it simply uses vague words to describe it. So here it is clear that Scripture had to be explicit in order to convey the sin. If it were simply a matter of duty, would it simply say, "Onan did not fulfill his duty, thus God killed him"? It explicitly discusses the act, because it is within the act that the sin is committed.
In addition, the Bible says Onan was killed for what he "did," not for what he didn't do. This alone explains why your theory is wrong.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
As I have posted many times.. If someone's interpretation of the scripture differs from yours they are automatically wrong...
When Onan agreed to marry his brother's wife it was understood that he was to give his brother an heir. He went back on his agreement.. He never intended to give his brother an heir. There are always blessing and curses or consequences to our choices. His consequence was death. God had the right to do what He did, He is God. Onan tried to reap the benefits without keeping his obligation to his brother.
Blessings
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 23, 2004 06:25 PMJeff;
Just to answer your question...
Once a child has been conceived (i.e.; from the MOMENT of conception), he/she is a living human being. Purposefully killing this child for any reason is murder. One cannot put the life of the mother over that of her child. Therefore, abortion is ALWAYS wrong.
Hope that helps,
Nickie.
Nickie,
So in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, what do you do? What does the RCC say about this issue? I am curious.
God Bless
Some women take the pill for hormonal balancing. You said it's inherently evil. Should a single woman taking the pill for hormonal balancing come under your condemnation? I can't see how your argument shows that. It also doesn't cause abortion. It causes failure of implantation. There's a medical difference. Abortion is a direct killing. Failure to implant will result in no development, but the pill is only an indirect cause of death. Whether or not you think there's a moral difference between the two, it does amount to a legal difference in the United States where there's a distinction between active and passive killing, the latter being legal for certain reasons.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 24, 2004 09:00 PMSome argue that the command to subdue and fill the earth must be seen in light of the command to be steward over all God's creation. That sounds reasonable to me. If you take that seriously enough, you end up seeing the command fulfilled when people have filled the earth enough to steward its resources and creatures well enough. In fact, populating beyond a certain point might violate the command to be fruitful and multiply.
However, I agree with your general argument that married couples should not avoid the responsibility of having children, at this point anyway and in this country. I don't see how spacing in extreme conditions with condoms is much different from doing so with NFP. In this sort of situation, NFP is allowed by Roman Catholicism. The reason is still to prevent contraception during this period, so it really is contraception. The reason is absolutely the same as the reason people would use condoms in this situation. NFP does suppress fertility, because it means abstaining during fertile times, just as condom use during fertile times suppresses fertility. Both allow the possibility of conception as well. Both work against the body and not with it. The body wants to conceive, and NFP is designed to avoid that. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
The issues of people abusing sex are irrelevant. Who cares if someone else is doing something wrong? I want to know if I, as a Christian, am doing something wrong. Telling me it's wrong to use a condom in the same circumstances a Catholic couple would use NFP on the grounds that people use condoms for free sex is just a dumb argument. It's like saying I shouldn't have sex with my wife because teenagers like to have sex outside marriage. That's no argument.
I just can't see how NFP can be tolerable given I Cor 7. Paul says that no reason for abstaining is a good one, but he concedes that for prayer it's ok for a short time. For no other reason is abstaining ok, so the Catholic view is simply in violation of scripture. That's why I think condoms for the situation you have said NFP is ok in are actually better than NFP, because that allows the sexual relation that Paul says a husband and wife should have.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 24, 2004 09:30 PMNickie or anyone else,
So in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, what do you do? What does the RCC say about this issue? I am curious.
God Bless
On Onan, I can't see how that passage shows that it's always wrong to engage in sexual relations while trying to space children apart for the reasons you say NFP is ok. I can think of other things other scriptures show to be wrong that Onan did. You've been emphasizing that Onan could have refrained from pretending he was going to give this woman an heir, and he would have faced social ostracism. So clearly he was trying to get out of that ostracism through pretending he'd give her an heir. He was therefore lying and breaking a commitment that he didn't have to make. It's also not clear that this was just once. Some Hebrew scholars think this was a persistent action of his, every time he had sex with her, so your argument about waiting has little force if that's right. I'm not sure why God would have to wait anyway, as if just giving it more time would lead Onan to repent. Does God always have to wait for people to change their ways before judging them? If so, it leads to universalism, which I didn't think you believed. I think it might be fair to derive a principle the wrongness of persistent and systematic avoidance of children out of the selfish desire not to have responsibilities.
I don't think it's fair to the text to derive an absolute prohibition of occasional or temporary contraception simply because of this passage's condemnation of Onan's ongoing and permanent desire never to have the responsibility that comes with the command to be fruitful and multiply and with his particular responsibility to provide his brother an heir.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at November 24, 2004 09:40 PMWow Jeremy,
You're reading a lot into the text. Nowhere does the Bible even suggest this was on "ongoing and permanent desire" by Onan. The Bible simply says that God killed him for what he did, which was practice intercourse. Again, not for what he didn't do, which was provide a child, but what he did.
No where is the "persistent and systemic avoidance of children" mentioned in the text. In fact, Scripture seems to suggest this is the first time they had intercourse, rather than somewhere down the road (there's much more evidence to support this than there is to support your theory). I cannot believe God would kill him for a crime that merited a very light punishment otherwise.
The problem is there is no easy way to get around Onan being killed for contraception. You bring up possibilities that are no where in the Bible (isn't this against the principles of sola scriptura?). The early Church Fathers unanimously viewed this as a clear condemnation of contraception, it's only our "enlightened" and individualist 20th century minds that can't accept this.
By the way, everyone seems to avoid the New Testament condemnations as well.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
"The Bible simply says that God killed him for what he did, which was practice intercourse. Again, not for what he didn't do, which was provide a child, but what he did."
Thats funny, because the Marian doctrine is based loosely on what the apostles or anyone DID not do.
Lastly, Marc brings up a good question. What about an ectopic pregnancy? What is the RCC view on that issue?
Jay,
You keep glossing over this point.. You say God killed Onan for what he did. True. But the text CLEARLY gives the motivation for his action. Because He KNEW that the child would NOT be HIS ! How is Jeremy or anyone else READING into it? That's the kettle calling the pot black..
Doesn't the law say or inply that the first child conceived from the union of a brother and the wife of a dead brother without an heir, would be the brother's heir ? The Scripture CLEARLY states that Onan KNEW the child would not be his. This is obvioulsy the Reason why Onan Spilled his seed. to prevent his brother from having an heir...
If you can not see and conceed this point which is Clear and Obvious from the text, then how can anyone be expected to trust your interpretation
of any other scripture ?
You say he was killed because of what he did and Not because of What he did Not do.. To say that is to ignore what the scripture text Clearly States. "Onan knew that the child would not be his" Which is Clear motivation for doing what he did.
Onan obviously wanted to have a physical relationship with his brother's wife and he obviously didn't mind getting his brother's property. He DID NOT want to bring a child into the World that WOULD NOT BE HIS.... There is No twisting of the scripture or reading into it.
The scripture Clearly gives the Motivation for what Onan did. Why can't you see it ??
Yes contraception was practiced, But why ? Not because he did not want ANY children but because he DID NOT WANT TO GIVE HIS BROTHER AN HEIR.
In Christ,
Clem
Posted by: Clem at November 25, 2004 01:39 PMOn ectopic pregnancies...
Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church allows the diseased tube to be sliced twice so as to remove the diseased section (with baby) without directly attacking the baby. Unfortunately, the baby dies. It does not condone direct attacks (chemical, surgical, or otherwise) on the baby.
I believe the Church condones this treatment because it meets ALL of the following conditions (I may have missed a few conditions as I'm running from memory here):
1. baby would have died anyways
2. procedure does not directly attack the baby
3. purpose of procedure is not to end the life of the baby (the death of the baby is expected but not intended)
4. procedure is required for the health of another (in this case the mother)
5. no safer alternatives exist
Notice that abortion does not meet any of the above conditions. I believe a similar case came up when the British government ordered baby siamese twins to be separated against the (Catholic) parents wishes. But in that case condition #2 was not fulfilled although the others were and that the Vatican supported the parent's decision. Unfortunately, the government did not heed the parents or the vatican.
I asked about the ectopic pregnancy because it is a case where the embryo will not develop. There is a chance of the embryo of resolving on its own without intervention. This is what the field of medicine has shown. However there is also a chance that the embryo could continue to grow and eventually cause a tubal rupture, which potentially could result in sever maternal hemmorhage.
Medicine is nothing that is against God. All wisdom and knowledge comes from God. There is nothing wrong with using this knowledge. And the knowledge shows that the embryo will not develop if it is anywhere outside the uterus. There is nothing wrong with a medical abortion in this instance.
I have read that using contraception takes the control of out of God's hand or something to that effect. A statement that I totally disagree with. Yet if that mentality is used for contraception, then for the sake of consistency, it should be applied to the idea of a medical abortion in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. If you believe that by using NFP that if God wants you to have children you will regardless, than fine. But be consistent, believe that God can either allow the embryo to resolve on its own or that He can place the embryo into the uterus so that it may properly develop.
If you believe that practicing contraception takes away from God the chance to work, then so must be the case in a ectopic pregnancy.
All wisdom belongs to God. There is nothing wrong with using it. And Broken Record, regardless of what the RCC determines to be medically OK, it still results in death of the enbryo. Be it chemically or by removing the piece of tube, the death of the embryo results.
As for Onan, I think Clem hit it right on nail. He KNEW the child would not be his. That was his motivation for spilling his seed on the ground. Once again the key word is context. In the context of the situation, the law at that time and the fact that Scripture points out that Onan knew what the consequences of his action, it is clear that God felt what Onan's action was disgusting because of his intentions.
God Bless
Here we go again,
According to constant Roman Catholic teaching and pre-20th century common sense, the practice of medicine should constrain itself to healing the sick.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy without directly attacking the baby treats a disease / unhealthy condition. Same goes for setting broken bones etc...
Contraception and abortion do not count as good medicine for the simple reason that pregnancy and fertility do not count as diseases.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the Church acknowledges the need to treat a disease, yet respects the life of the baby to the greatest extent possible, namely by not directly attacking the baby.
Arguing that "the baby dies anyways" truly frightens me. My mother will die one day and the people who care for her will one day be unable to save her, but I would not take kindly to someone killing her off and saying "it was gonna happen anyways". There is a big difference between being unable to save someone's life and offing them yourself.
I fail to see how rendering the marital act infertile can be seen as morally equivalent to the noble task of treating real diseases.
Posted by: Broken Record at November 26, 2004 02:39 PMAnd, Marc, one other other (we're all becoming a 'broken record' on this topic): Scripture says Onan was killed by God for what he "did," not for his intentions, not for what he didn't do. Onan did something that God considered worthy of the death penalty.
You have to figure out a way of explaining to yourself that contraception wasn't what Onan did, which I think is a problem. I keep hearing essentially excuses, but none address this one issue: The infallible Bible says that Onan was killed for his actions, not his thoughts, not his lack of action, but for what he did.
What did Onan do?
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
The Bible clearly illustrates what was in Onans heart and what his intentions were. I believe you do see that yet you will not conceed to it becuase it would weaken your argument greatly. the scenario clearly shows that...\
1. Onan's brother died.
2. The law required Onan to produce an heir for his brother with his brother's wife.
3. Onan knew that the child would not be his, which is the reason he spilled his seed on the ground every time he had sex with his brother's wife so that HE WOULD not produce an offspring TO HIS BROTHER.
That is what God found in detestable. It is very clear as to what the intentions were and what God found to be detestable. What you are doing is focusing on the spilling of the seed. You have to take the entire Scripture into context. This is not excuse, it is very clear, God killed Onan because of his intentions which led to his action.
So here is what Onan did wrong; He did not fulfill his duty as a brother. He wanted to enjoy sex without fulfilling his duty. Now this is an assumption on my part, but he probably said to his brothers wife and to his own family that he would produce an offspring. So he probably lied and was deceptive. But if we are to stick to the Bible strictly, the Bible CLEARLY shows that Onan had sex with his brother's wife with intention to not produce an heir for his brother. That is what God found detestable.
As for the RCC teachings on medicine...the point I made was simple. If you say that the problem with contraception is taking the control out of God's hand, then you ought take the same stance when dealing with and ectopic pregnancy and its removal.
Some couples may be financially constrained. If that couple chooses to use contraception for a time period, there is nothing wrong with that. That is called wisdom. NFP or a condom, are the same. They are not 100% proof and they both are INTENDED to prevent pregnancy.
God Bless
Posted by: Marc at November 27, 2004 11:42 AMJay or Joe,
I just had a quick question. Has the issue of birth control ever been made into a doctrinal statement by the Pope? If so when and is there a place where I can read what he said. If not is this an issue that had been passed down verbally from the beginning of the Church or what.
Thanks Kristie
Posted by: Kristie at March 14, 2005 01:28 PMI'm not Jay or Joe, but you may find the following helpful anyways...
Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI says it all clearly and succinctly. I believe he refers to and re-iterates ancient teachings in the document.
Technically, birth control falls into the realm of Natural Theology (where the Church enjoys the gift of discernment rather than the authority to make rulings) rather than doctrine. Although recent work by Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body elevates the whole discussion into a more spiritual level.
Posted by: Broken Record at March 15, 2005 03:39 PMThanks for the reply. First why the name change?
Second what was the name of the book you suggested I read to track firtility during periods of nursing? I think your wife uses it too. My following post is laid out with a question first and then the quote that goes with it following.
I have cut and pasted a few parts of the Humanae Vitae is ask some specific questions. This first part.
1. Am I correct here in understanding that the Church got a bunch of experts in the area of marriage/birth control to give their opinion. Who were these experts?
2. Afer they sent in their opinions it's clear that there was not a unified decision so Us has to weigh these reports am I correct? Do yo know what the reports were?
"When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.
The Magisterium's Reply
6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions."
3. Next, I get the serious reasons but the moral precepts I am fuzzy on. Are they talking about selfishness, greed, lovers of money here, or something else.
"for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."
4. Not quite sure what they mean by "These Laws" Is this nursing and child?
"The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws."
5. Who are they speaking of here?
"We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason."
6. This next quote, seems to go against NFP. Unless I am correct in thinking that we need to keep out priorities in line with Christ and seek his will. Is this right?
"Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source."
7. Can you give me some examples here, this is not clear to me?
"Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."
Thanks for clearing things up for me. I hope I am not sounding like a "broken record". Hey did you hear we are expecting our fourth child. We are really excited although I am really sick right now. Thanks again.
Posted by: Kristie at March 16, 2005 02:08 PMKristie wrote:
First why the name change?
Well, I was growing frustrated with my inability to say anything creative and helpful. I found myself doing no better than repeating the same thing over and over.
Second what was the name of the book you suggested I read to track firtility during periods of nursing? I think your wife uses it too
My wife and I use the Billings Ovulation Method to plan our families.
I have cut and pasted a few parts of the Humanae Vitae
I stumbled across an excellent resource that clarifies and explains the teachings of Humanae Vitae. My wife and I first heard Contraception, Why Not? by Doctor Janet Smith in tape format but I was thrilled to see it on the internet. The talk helped my wife and I form a lot of our thinking on the matter and deals with the whole issue better than I ever could. I can, however, attempt to focus solely on the points you raise.
1. Am I correct here in understanding that the Church got a bunch of experts in the area of marriage/birth control to give their opinion. Who were these experts?
Blessed John the XXIII put together the commission which was to give recommendations on how to respond to the sudden acceptance of contraception in modern society (for prior to 1930 all Christian Churches Catholic and Protestant reject contraception but by the 1960's only the Catholic Church had afiled to modernize). I believe they were a mixture of catholic clergy and laity - I do not know if non-catholics belonged to the committee.
2. Afer they sent in their opinions it's clear that there was not a unified decision so Us has to weigh these reports am I correct? Do yo know what the reports were?
The report recommended that the Catholic Church lift its ban on contraception saying that it was ok to render specific sexual acts infertile so long as the marriage relationship was still open to life in a holistic or overall sense. Only a handful on the committee (less than five of approximately 60 I believe) voted against the recommendation. One of these faithful was Karol Wojtyla, whom we have come to know and love as Pope John Paul II.
3. Next, I get the serious reasons but the moral precepts I am fuzzy on. Are they talking about selfishness, greed, lovers of money here, or something else.
I believe the moral precepts that we must pay due respect to refer to our need to respect the integrity of each and every single marital act. Three precepts which come to mind are: freedom, faithfulness, and openness to life.
4. Not quite sure what they mean by "These Laws" Is this nursing and child?
Nursing would be one of them, but I believe it also refers to other natural causes of infertility such as menopause, pregnancy, or even interruptions to the natural fertility cycle brought on by stress and illness.
5. Who are they speaking of here?
The "contemporaries", I believe, refer to everyone alive at the time. Because the teachings of Humanae Vitae are founded on Natural Law and not on Revealed Wisdom, Pope Paul VI expressed hope that all peoples regardless of race or creed could both in theory and practice discern for themselves, without first accepting the authority of the Church, that the teachings of Humanae Vitae were in accord with Human Nature.
6. This next quote, seems to go against NFP. Unless I am correct in thinking that we need to keep out priorities in line with Christ and seek his will. Is this right?
The statement that we have not been given unlimited dominion over our sexual faculties means that we must respect the integrity and fertility of each marital act but that we have been given the responsibility of deciding when we participate in the marital act. Humanae Vitae implores scientists to develop a reliable method by which married couples may know when they are and are not fertile so that these couples may be able to exercise responsibility in planning their families without violating the integrity of the marital act. In essence, to give couples the knowledge of fertility so that if they have serious reason to delay or avoid pregnancy they may do so by waiting for infertility rather than causing it.
7. Can you give me some examples here, this is not clear to me?
Are you looking for examples where it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a moral evil to avoid a greater evil?
The first example which comes to mind is a Catholic voting for George Bush. The Vatican made it quite clear that the war in Iraq was immoral and did not fit the criteria of a just war. Similar statements have also been levelled at the practice of capital punishment. To vote for the Bush Administration would be to tolerate the moral evils of unjust war and capital punishment. This can be considred lawful in order to avoid the greater evil allowing John Kerry to come to power.
I hope I am not sounding like a "broken record". Hey did you hear we are expecting our fourth child. We are really excited although I am really sick right now. Thanks again.
It is me, not you, who is the broken record. Congratulations on the fourth child. So sorry about the sickness, my wife had a horrible case of it with our first child. Not sure if the following information helps, but the hormone (beta HCG) which is making you so nauseous is keeping your corpus luteum alive. The corpus luteum (the ruptured follicle which once carried your egg) is producing progesterone which in turn keeps the lining of your uterus in place. The lining in your uterus allows your baby to live and receive nourishment. After 3 months, progesterone can be produced by means other than the corpus luteum so the beta HCG isnt needed and so the sickness goes away. That which makes you nauseous is keeping your baby alive - though
I often wonder why beta HCG has to make women so sick (maybe it has something to do with the fall and the curse). Diclectin (a simple mixture of vitamin b-6 and an antihistamine) helped my wife but boy was it expensive - especially for a university student looking for work. I still thank God for diclectin as his instrument of mercy.
Broken Record,
You may think you can't offer anything creative but sometimes the same thing stated in a different way can make sence to someone, example like me. Thanks for the web site I plan on reading it soon. Thanks also for clearing a lot up. I have asked many Cathloic women about what they believe on birthcontrol but they look at me totally confused. Question, how do you know so much about the pregnate woman? I thought I knew a lot but I have never heard of beta HCG or anything that you said for that matter. Thanks again Kristie.
Thank you for your kind comments Kristie, though sometimes I think the title "Broken Record" applies equally to my difficulty keeping my Lenten promises. I gave up criticizing and insulting people for Lent. My record has been far from perfect - quite broken in fact.
As to my knowledge of pregnancy, I first learned about beta HCG when my wife got such a bad case of nausea when pregnant with our first child. I learned about the corpus luteum when my wife was studying to teach the Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning. She knows so much about it that it makes my head spin. What I have learned so far has increased my appreciation for my wife, women in general, and for the wonders God works through women.
Posted by: Broken Record at March 17, 2005 11:21 PMI am currently doin a project on contraception for my religion class and i found this essay to be the most informative Catholic opinion on the internet
Posted by: Jacob Lecesne at March 22, 2005 01:04 PM
