DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

You and others keep going back to the "We have always believed it so it must be true." argument. There are many things we have always believed that are clearly not true. This argument hold no weight with me, and I am at a loss as to why it holds weight with others.

As for Onan's story, Onan was punished because of his contraception in light of his duty as a brother to produce offspring. There is no corresponding duty for a normal married man found in the Scriptures.

It is interesting that throughout the Scripture sexual sins are repeatedly mentioned. This subject, almost more so than any other, is exhaustively talked about, and yet nowhere else in Scripture is contraception even mentioned much less condemned. It was a common practice back then. You would think that someone would have mentioned it and warned us about it, if it was the grave evil that you believe it is.

As far as the argument about trusting God, do you go to the Hospital when you are sick? If so, are you truly trusting that God alone can heal your body? God can work alone, but He also works through human intervention and means.

Also I still believe that the Catholic Church has capitulated on this issue as well. It just calls it by another name. However, the spirit is still there.

One final question: Does the Catholic Church enact church displine against its members when they engage in contraception? If not why not? It is a sin to the Church and we are commanded in the Scriptures to not associate ourselves with others who claim to be Christians but live and embrace a sinful lifestyle . . . or is that another commandment of Scripture that Tradition overrides?

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
The point is not "we have always believed it so it must be true." The point is that God allowed it to be taught for 1930 years and suddenly a protestant church changed it (by the way, the same one that is now changing views on homosexuality). In the New Testament there are several condemnations of contraception that I've pointed out, but of course protestant Bibles have changed the meaning of the word so that it seems to condemn something else.

The early Church is universal in it's condemnation of contraception even in the Didache (the oldest non-Biblical Christian writing). The Scriptural evidence is very strong against contraception, but there will always be excuses for why it's now okay.

You statement seems to be that God isn't just. Basically He killed a man who should have gotten a much lighter punishment. Also, you seem to say it was a sin of omission rather than commission, but the Bible clearly states that what Onan did was evil.

In addition, Onan could have given her a child later. So if this was merely a sin of not giving her a child, why didn't God wait to see if Onan would fulfill the promise later? Perhaps he just wanted some time alone with his new bride before adding children? Maybe he didn't think he could afford children just yet? Would God be so presumptious to assume that if Onan did it once he would never have children (if so, contraception is still a problem)?

Your hospital argument is a joke: is pregnancy a disease to be treated? If you go in this direction you'll soon argue that abortion is just healing a problem.

As a Catholic if you are practicing contraception, you cannot receive communion (the Eucharist) and are living in a state of grave sin. In other words, you need to go to confession immediately with the intent to never use contraception again. Obviously priest cannot interrogate the entire Church, so it is expected that you will not receive. If you do, well just read what St. Paul says in Corinthians about those who receive unworthily.

Finally, I'm disappointed that you still throw outright hostile lines that aren't true. Please name me one "commandment of Scripture that Tradition overrides" and cite the Biblical passage.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas;

I know this is long, but please read all of what I have to say...

You have to ask yourself: "Does God change? Does God's Law change? Is it possible for humans to vote on Truth (this is what happened at the 1930 Lambeth conference that decided to allow contraception....it wasn't unanimous either)?

It was taught by EVERY CHRISTIAN until 1930 that contraception was wrong....in most cases GRAVELY wrong. So the question then becomes...."was all of Christianity distorting the Truth of the Holy Spirit before 1930 (many of them after the Reformation were basing their beliefs on their reading of the Bible - so did they misinterpret the Holy Spirit's guidance in their Biblical exegesis?) or is all of Christianity except the Catholic Church distorting the Truth of the Holy Spirit now?

It's one or the other. Either everyone was wrong up until 1930, or all protestant denominations are wrong now and the Catholics are right."

As Jay mentioned in a recent post, many of the Early Church Fathers were taught by those who WALKED WITH JESUS. We all know that Jesus said and did things that were not written down in the Bible. Therefore, what the Early Church Fathers taught is more likely to be in line with what Christ taught than those who lived 1600 years later, and more especially than those who caved in to social pressure 1930 years later. Point in case: the Early Church Fathers taught that contraception was sinful! This was echoed through all of Christianity (many of the Protestant reformers were the strongest oponents of contraception) until a vote taken by the Anglican Church in 1930. Suddenly they decided (and as I mentioned earlier - the vote wasn't unanimous) that they knew better than the Early Church Fathers and all those that came after them, and said that artificial contraception is okay.

You said, "You and others keep going back to the "We have always believed it so it must be true." argument.... This argument hold no weight with me, and I am at a loss as to why it holds weight with others."

I don't believe that this arguement holds no weight with you. In everything else you believe, that arguement holds weight with you. Do believe that Christ died and rose again for our sins? Do you believe that Christ was Divine and Human? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you believe that God is Good and Just?

WHY???

Because that is what has been taught from the beginning!(well in most cases - in some cases it took a few hundred years for humans to fully come to know and understand)!...Because "we have always believed it so it must be true"! If that arguement holds no weight with you, then why not throw everything out? If it's possible in 1930 to suddenly deny what Christianity has always taught, then how to you trust anything you believe? What else did we get wrong? Maybe Christ didn't die.; maybe He didn't rise again. Maybe He isn't Divine; Maybe God isn't Triune (Trinity); etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,.......Suddenly, it all devolves into relativism, and you have nothing to stand on with anything you believe.

So back to the arguement at hand...
Some of the most profound (and wonderful) theology behind sexuality and the sin of contraception has to do with human sexual intercourse, within the commitment of marriage, being an earthly representation of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity. Consider: the Father and the Son have coexisted from all time and the intense love and mutual self-giving between them produces the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the product of the intense love the Father and Son have for one another. In the same way, the intense love and mutual self-giving that takes place between a man and wife during sexual intercourse produces offspring. The human family, therefore reflects God in a very deep and wonderful way. Ever heard the saying that 'sex is sacred'? Well, in a very true sense, it IS! (Many people believe that this is precisely why sex and sexuality is so contstantly under attack - as can be evidenced so blatantly in our society today).

Therefore, if God's incredible design of the human family is a reflection of His Whole Self, His Whole Being, it makes sense that artificial birth control is basically a slap in the face of God and Who He is and What He designed us to be. It all goes very much deeper than all of this, but that is some of the basic theology behind the Church's teaching.

Also, with regard to the difference between artificial birth control and NFP....just because you don't see the difference, or refuse to study it in depth doesn't mean there isn't a difference. In fact there is a very profound difference between the two. Read about it; study the theology behind it. The logic is irrefutable.

This is a quote from another blog that discussed the very same topic: "The sin of contraception is not so much the prevention of life as much as the selfishness, and self-centeredness of the act. To go back to the typology of the Trinity, just as the Father and the Son are eternally commited to one another and share each other's life in a radical way, and this radical, mutual self-giving results in the Holy Trinity, so is the human family. When a couple commits themselves to one another and pledges to each other all love, all effort, etc., one of the things promised is the body, the sexuality. The radical, mutual self-giving and ecstatic love between a married couple is consumated in the conjugal act. It is the point at which the two fleshes truly become one and that radical, mutual self-giving produces offspring. Nothing that God made is to be considered less than a means of glorifying God, sexuality is no exception. Sex is not a dirty thing, it is not a contact sport. It is the means by which people who have commited themselves to one another express that love physically.

Any intentional, artificial interference in that is a denial of the basic nature of the human person and the nature of the Trinity as model of the family is a gross afront to God.

So the larger problem with contraception is not that it prevents life, but that it denies the true nature of sexuality; it takes a gift of God that is intended for sharing and uses it for personal selfish reasons. It says to God, "My personal pleasure is more important than the code and nature you wove into humanity."

This is why sodomy, masturbation, bestiality, fornication, adultery, fellatio, and contraception, are all sinful. They are all equal in that they are all examples of humans taking for themselves what rightly is intended for sharing within a commited bond of one man and one woman." - T.C.

Thomas I could go on and on. The Church's teaching in this (and of course in all that She teaches) is deep, profound, logical, and in line with what has always been taught by Christians from the very beginning.

You are in my prayers,
God bless,
Nickie.

Thomas;

I can't resist....here is a little more on the theology behind the Church's teaching on contraception. Please note that I am by no means a theologian, so what I present is very basic.

Much of what the Catholic Church teaches is based on logical principles regarding natural law. Natural Law states that in order for something to prosper, you have to use it in accordance with it's nature.

Take a VCR for example. What is it for, what is it's nature? It is for playing VHS tapes to be shown on your TV. Therefore, you can use it to make grilled cheese sandwiches, but it probably won't make very good grilled cheese sandwiches, and it will most likely be damaged in the process. That's not using it according to it's nature.

Another example: a tomato plant. What is it for? Growing tomatoes. If it is used as a feather duster, it probably won't prosper according to it's nature. If it's not given light and water, it probably won't prosper according to it's nature.

This is a VERY very basic definition of Natural Law...Natural Law and the philosophy of it has been studied in great depth for hundreds of years. Please don't try to refute the philosophy of Natural Law unless you are a trained philosopher or theologian.

Now, the Church teaches that human sexuality has a certain nature, and unless you use it according to that nature, chaos will result. (Again this has been studied for hundreds of years and is very very interesting and profound if you are interested in learning more.) So what is the meaning and nature of human sexuality? To come down to the very basics, "it is for babies and for bonding." Or it is unitive and procreative.

So if you purposefully lock out one or the other, you are not using it according to it's nature and chaos will result.

Now herein lies at least a part of the difference between ABC and NFP. Part of the nature of sex is that it is not always fertile. That is the way God made it, it's built into the system, so using it in line with this part of it's nature does not result in chaos.

Now you might say that part of the nature of sexual intercourse is pleasure. Yes, sexual intercourse is pleasurable, but that is not what it is FOR. A VCR might give off heat, but that is not what is it for. Using it as a heater would be ineffective and again damaging. Sleeping is pleasurable, but that is not what sleeping is FOR....pleasure is not the real purpose for sleeping. Pleasure, therefore, is not was sexual intercourse is FOR.

In his encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' written in the 1960's Pope Paul VI made several predictions about what would happen to society if the use of artificial contraception were to become widespread. This was in contrast to every prediction being made by almost everyone else at the time. Pretty much all of Pope Paul VI's predictions have come to fruition (culminating in the more recent 'homosexual marriage' debate), while everyone else's predictions have been blown to bits. Pope Paul IV was not able to travel in time and see the future, yet he was bang on with respect to what would happen if contraception became mainstay.

WHY?

He knew that if human sexuality was not used according to it's nature, Chaos would result. Have you watched MTV lately? Have you seen the billboards advertising sex to 12 year olds? Have you seen the statistics on teenage sexual activity and pregnancy lately? Have you seen the statistics on abortion recently? Have you seen the divorce rates skyrocket? Have you taken a look at what children are learning about sexual activity in schools? Have you listened to the homosexual 'marriage' debate? Have you listened to the lyrics of mainstream music and what our kids are listening to? Have you seen what girls as young as 8 or 9 are wearing today, asking Mommy whether or not they look sexy enough? Have you heard the world statistics on AIDS recently?

I'd call that chaos.

God bless,
Nickie.

Nickie,

With all do respect, you really got off point.
Basically the church is saying one and only one form of contraception is acceptable but any other form of contraception is NOT acceptable..

That is the debate. They use one verse out of Genesis to base their doctrine on. I have very extensive bible software and I did a search on Contraception. It cane up with these scriptures:

BIRTH CONTROL
Physical procedure, Genesis 38:8–10.
Population growth, Exodus 1:7.
Doors shut to womb, Job 3:10 (kjv).
Children a heritage, Psalm 127:3–5.
Mandate for large families, Jeremiah 29:4–6.
Nursing, pregnancy, Hosea 1:8.
Husband’s option, John 1:13.

CONCEPTION
Season for conception, Genesis 18:10
Closed wombs, Genesis 20:17–18.

None of these scriptures clearly condem contraception.

The Onan story has is about Onan knowing that if he gave his sister In Law a child it
would not be his. God was displeased with his act but was it about contraception or about something else? Wasn't it about Onan's not doing what he was obligated to do ?

The way I see it is the Church will accept contraception, but only if it is done the way They interpret, as being acceptable.

The problem is NOT that the bible condems contraception because if it DID then NO method would be acceptable. The question is that contraception has to be done the way the Church says is acceptable. The debate is not about contraception but about the method used...

Your Brother in Christ ..

Clem

Clem;

How on earth is giving (some) of the background on the Church's teachings on contraception getting off topic?? I was responding directly to what Thomas said, in fact quoting him in a couple of places.

Did you read what I wrote?

I gave some reasons why the Catholic Church teaches what it does. The Church does not use one verse in Genesis to base their doctrine on. It uses a whole heck of lot of other things, not the least of which is the God-given use of reason.

I don't think you read what I wrote. You couldn't have if that is the response you gave. Please think about what you are saying and arguing instead of just arguing for arguement's sake as it often seems you do.

You too are in my prayers,
Nickie.

Here it is again:

Q1. Why is Natural Family Planning different from contraception?
Q2. Wasnt Onan slain for failing not providing Tamar with a child?

A1. contraception alters the marital act so as to make it infertile. Natural Family Planning informs the couple when the woman is fertile - if they believe they have serious reason to postpone pregnancy they abstain during the fertile times. Yes NFP can be abused and can be used wrongly but it can also be used rightly. Contraception cannot be used rightly even if the couple does have serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Is it hard to see the difference between information and alteration? Consider King David - he wished to have Bathsheba so he arranged the death of her husband Uriah (he altered the situation). God used Nathan to communicate his condemnation of that vile act. Had Uriah died without David having anything to do with Uriah's death, David could have taken Bathsheba without offending God. Nathan even suggests that if David had asked God for Bathsheba, God would have arranged things for David. David need only have waited and watched instead of taking matters into their own hands. Same principle here, if a couple wants to have marital relations without getting pregnant, they need not take matters into their own hands. They need only wait patiently and watch vigilantly.

A2. aside from 1900 years of Christian tradition (including Evangelical Protestants, Calvinists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals) which unilaterally interpret Genesis 38 as condemning contraception, masturbtion, and coitus interruptus, we have more reasons to believe Onan was slain for "spilling his seed" rather than for not providing a child to Tamar.

• The verse condemns what Onan did rather than what he failed to do. Not providing a child to Tamar was his act of omission, spilling his seed was his act of commission


• Judah and Selah also had their duty to make sure Tamar's first husband, Er, had an heir. Judah failed by not giving Selah to Tamar, Selah failed by marrying not Tamar. So Judah, Selah, and Onan all failed to provide an heir for Er but only Onan is mentioned as "spilling his seed". God slays Onan but not Judah and Selah.


• The penalty in Leviticus for not providing your elder brother an heir is to have the widow take your shoe, spit in your shoe, and have the rest of the town laugh at you for not having your shoes. Rather a light sentence considering Moses had people stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. Onan must have done more than simply fail his duty, the Bible only mentions he "spilled his seed" apart from not providing an heir for his brother


• The very fact that the Bible mentions Onan spilling his seed suggests an automatic condemnation. Look at other passages in Ezekiel or Judges and see that when the Bible makes explicit sexual descriptions, it is for the purpose of condemnation. Look at other passages in the Bible, such as the Song of Songs, which speak well of sexuality and notice that it uses implicit and oblique language

Nickie, thank you for your insightful and refreshingly new comments, I grow weary of my vain repetitions.

Nickie and all,

Without all the fancy terminology and spin, the point of NFP is to avoid getting pregnant. Simply put. Whether it is for a time period or not, it is designed to NOT GET PREGNANT. The core reason for NFP again, is to not have conception. The idea of NFP is against conception. Therefore it is a form of contraception. The intent of NFP is to not get pregnant.
You do realize that after a woman has her menses, there is a 99% chance she won't get pregnant up to 7 days after the start of her menses. Those are pretty good chances. The excuse that NFP differs from other forms of contraception because it leaves God room to still operate is bogus. God can operate through anything. People have gotten pregnant using condoms and OCP. The bottom line is that the intention of NFP is the same as the intention of using a condom. TO avoid pregnancy. Sometimes it is best for a couple to take their time in building up a family. That is called wisdom.
Whether you use NFP or a condom, as long as it does not cause an abortion....there is nothing wrong. But make no mistake, using a condom and NFP are the same thing...both are for prevention of pregnancy and both are not 100% proof.

GOd Bless

Nickie,

Obviously you feel that my opinion is worthless, not just on this subject but on any subject I respond to and that my motivation for posting is to be arguementative... You must have special powers to be able to look into my heart and determine my motivation for posting.

I made no such comments about your post. That was a huge put down. I said in my post with all do respect, I thought that you had gotten off the point. I never said what you had to say was worthless... Or that all of your posts are pointless.. I would NEVER say that to someone. But I guess you have closed your mind to anything I have to say..

What I posted was from scripture. The Onan scripture clearly states the reason He spilled his seed and that was because he knew that the child would not be his. God was displeased with his action.

Yet the church wanst to use this scripture to claim that this action had to do with contraception .

Nickie, I don't need prayers from someone who thinks I have nothing to contribute or that I have nothing to say. I don't need your pitty or your condesention..

We are supposed to be Christians exchanging differing points of view. Do you think your response was Christ like... ?

I am thankful that the Lord listens, finds my opinions relevant and hears my voice. I am grateful that He does not tune me out.

Still a Child of the King,

Clem

Jay,

You have repeatedly condemned protestant churches for giving in to society pressure on the contraception issue.

First of all based on our belief of Sola Scriptura, if it isn’t in the Bible and can’t be determined through reason and logic from what we know of the Bible, we believe (as you well know) that it becomes a grey area subject to Christian liberties. The condemnation of contraception is nowhere found in the Bible. God punished Onan because he had sex with his brother’s wife and purposely prevented her from conceiving a child, when he had the duty to not do so. He took pleasure in the act, but didn’t fulfill the duty. Those two things acting in concert was why God punished him. There is no corresponding duty for us to conceive children. No where else is there even a remote condemnation of contraception in the Bible. Why is that? Maybe it was because God never intended it to be a hard and fast rule. Maybe he left it up to the husband and wife involved to be convicted one way or the other.

Nickie,

Yes, like anything else that God has blessed us with, a child can cease to become a blessing when we seek to set that child up or the act of child bearing itself up, as the idol at the center of our lives instead of God and His will.

Jay and Nickie,

The problem I see with this whole post is the condemnation that I see from our Catholic brothers and sisters. Before the Catholic Church casts the first stone I think it had better take a second look at themselves.

I think that Jeff's post pretty much sums up my feelings on the NFP versus non-NFP methods. I believe that the Catholic Church has capitulated on this issue just as all other denominations have. It would be interesting to see if the Church's views have always been the same regarding NFP. I would guess not.

The second issue I raised to me is more interesting. I asked about church discipline, a question that was never answered.

You see the Catholic Church (or its members) has made it that through its backbending teachings it can stand on its soap box and condemn other churches, all the while its own members do the very thing that is condemned, both under the protection of the Church’s official teachings (NFP) and outside of it (non-NFP) without any consequences. Who is the hypocrite here? At least protestant churches admit what they are embracing and it is consistent with its teaching and doctrines.

I’m sorry the Catholic Church has no leg to stand on in condemning anyone in this area.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas;

If, after what I wrote, you still are sure that NFP is the same as artificial birth control (ABC), and that using ABC is an acceptable practice, I would appreciate if you would logically refute the arguements I presented.

Also, please note that it is not the Church's job to condemn people for what they do/do not do. The Church teaches the Truth and those who belong to the Church have the free will whether to accept or reject that teaching. Each will be judged by God and God only.

One final quick point, the use of ABC was condemned by many of the Protestant reformers such as (but not limited to) Martin Luther, John Calvin (in fact he virtually equated it to murder), and John Wesley. They all interpreted the scripture passage of Onan to point out that God killed Onan due to his coitus interuptus. Take for example this quote from Martin Luther,

"T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

So as an honest question, I'm just wondering whose teachings and doctrines the protestant churches rely on? I honestly don't follow this logic. How can doctrine change? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Nickie

Thomas,
I answered your question above. I think Nickie has also done an excellent job of answering it. Finally take a look at this article by a protestant on the Bible and contraception. It might help to get a non-Catholic viewpoint.

In the end, I believe the case has been made in several ways by several different people on this blog. At some point, you either can choose to believe or not believe; ultimately we all have free will. But you must realize that there is a strong, valid, Scriptural argument against contraception. Only by "wiggling" can you get around the reality of the situation. Scripture never offers details on intercourse unless it is specifically condemning some aspect of the act, such as the contraceptive act of Onan.

Babies are always a gift from God, who knew them before they were formed in their mother's womb. They are not a disease to be treated or a cancer to be avoided.

Finally, the "leg" the Catholic Church has to stand on is the one called "Truth." There will always be those who seek to ignore the Truth by pointing to this sinner or that sinner, but this does not change the reality of Truth. The Catholic Church can't hide Truth because you don't like it, she merely presents it for you to accept or reject using your own free will.

The Church has always condemned contraception. Yes, some members in the US still use it, just as some members lie, cheat, or steal. In fact, I bet you can find a Catholic who has murdered or had an affair. Under your logic this means the Church should proclaim murder as a moral good, right?

The Church clearly teaches that those using contraception cannot receive communion. What more should it do? Check the cabinets of parishoners? Where does individual responsiblity begin? By the way, I can imagine the reaction from protestants if Catholics had to submit to a search by the Church!

Ultimately, Truth is truth. You can reject it or not, but that's your issue, not the Churches.

God bless,
Jay

"Just a quick repost"

Nickie and all,

Without all the fancy terminology and spin, the point of NFP is to avoid getting pregnant. Simply put. Whether it is for a time period or not, it is designed to NOT GET PREGNANT. The core reason for NFP again, is to not have conception. The idea of NFP is against conception. Therefore it is a form of contraception. The intent of NFP is to not get pregnant.
You do realize that after a woman has her menses, there is a 99% chance she won't get pregnant up to 7 days after the start of her menses. Those are pretty good chances. The excuse that NFP differs from other forms of contraception because it leaves God room to still operate is bogus. God can operate through anything. People have gotten pregnant using condoms and OCP. The bottom line is that the intention of NFP is the same as the intention of using a condom. TO avoid pregnancy. Sometimes it is best for a couple to take their time in building up a family. That is called wisdom.
Whether you use NFP or a condom, as long as it does not cause an abortion....there is nothing wrong. But make no mistake, using a condom and NFP are the same thing...both are for prevention of pregnancy and both are not 100% proof.

GOd Bless

Nickie,

You said "It is not the churches job to condemm
people for what they do do or don't do"

Then in you say that the Protestant church condemmed ABC..

Which is it ? Is it the job of the church to condemm or not? Actually It's not the churches job to condemm because that is reserved for God.
However it IS the churches job to judge and to separate itself from sin.

Galations 5:1-13
5:1
It is widely reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual immorality that is not even condoned among the Gentiles--a man is living with his father's wife.
5:2
And you are inflated with pride, instead of filled with grief so that he who has committed this act might be removed from among you.
5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, along with my spirit and with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5:5
turn that one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord.
5:6
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast permeates the whole batch of dough?
5:7
Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, since you are unleavened. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.
5:11
But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.
5:12
For what is it to me to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are inside?
5:13
But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves.
***********
If the Catholic church has such strong teachings about ABC, and the priest is aware that a member
is practicing ABC, then why don't they follow the
instructions of Paul?

After all, he was an apostle and the scripture
seems very clear.. Evidentally Paul's method of
handling sin in the church differs from how the Catholic church chooses to deal with sin, or at least with this sin, which it appears is to do nothing...

By His Grace,

Clem

Nickie,

You said, “If, after what I wrote, you still are sure that NFP is the same as artificial birth control (ABC), and that using ABC is an acceptable practice, I would appreciate if you would logically refute the arguements I presented.”

I think that I and others already have. Of course NFP and ABC are not exactly alike, but the mentality is the same.

You said, “Also, please note that it is not the Church's job to condemn people for what they do/do not do. The Church teaches the Truth and those who belong to the Church have the free will whether to accept or reject that teaching. Each will be judged by God and God only.”

That is not what Scripture says. It says that it is the Church’s job to judge its members.

You said, “One final quick point, the use of ABC was condemned by many of the Protestant reformers such as (but not limited to) Martin Luther, John Calvin (in fact he virtually equated it to murder), and John Wesley. They all interpreted the scripture passage of Onan to point out that God killed Onan due to his coitus interuptus. Take for example this quote from Martin Luther,
"T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."”

I’m not sure why you keep quoting the Reformers. Where I agree with them in a number of ways I do not believe that they were infallible in all their teachings, and I am not bound by their teachings. I simply disagree with them here.

You said, “So as an honest question, I'm just wondering whose teachings and doctrines the protestant churches rely on? I honestly don't follow this logic. How can doctrine change? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.”

As I have said before God’s Truth doesn’t change only man’s understanding of that Truth does.

Jay,

You said, “Finally take a look at this article by a protestant on the Bible and contraception. It might help to get a non-Catholic viewpoint.”

My wife and I have looked at and wrestled with this problem for at least two years now. I have heard from both Protestants and Catholics. I will go read this but I doubt that it will bring up any new arguments that I have not heard before.

You said, “In the end, I believe the case has been made in several ways by several different people on this blog. At some point, you either can choose to believe or not believe; ultimately we all have free will. But you must realize that there is a strong, valid, Scriptural argument against contraception. Only by "wiggling" can you get around the reality of the situation. Scripture never offers details on intercourse unless it is specifically condemning some aspect of the act, such as the contraceptive act of Onan.”

I think that the wiggling is being done on the other side.

You said, “Babies are always a gift from God, who knew them before they were formed in their mother's womb. They are not a disease to be treated or a cancer to be avoided.”

Not if they become an idol that replaces God or His will for the throne of your heart.

You said, “Finally, the "leg" the Catholic Church has to stand on is the one called "Truth." There will always be those who seek to ignore the Truth by pointing to this sinner or that sinner, but this does not change the reality of Truth. The Catholic Church can't hide Truth because you don't like it, she merely presents it for you to accept or reject using your own free will.”

Your truth claims ring hollow.

You said, “The Church has always condemned contraception. Yes, some members in the US still use it, just as some members lie, cheat, or steal. In fact, I bet you can find a Catholic who has murdered or had an affair. Under your logic this means the Church should proclaim murder as a moral good, right?”

I never said that the Church should proclaim anything right just because its members do it. My point is that the church is clearly to condemn evil, and it is called to administer church discipline on its members who habitually practice wrong living. It has called contraception evil. And yet I have never heard of the Church excommunicating its members for using contraception, have you? Surely the use of contraception by someone has come to the Church’s attention. I know at least a dozen Catholics who are using ABC. If I were to turn them in to their local priest what would happen? Absolutely nothing. That is how the Church can have its cake and eat it too.

You said, “The Church clearly teaches that those using contraception cannot receive communion. What more should it do? Check the cabinets of parishoners? Where does individual responsiblity begin? By the way, I can imagine the reaction from protestants if Catholics had to submit to a search by the Church!”

Practice Biblical church discipline, and force its members to practice what it preaches. You know why it dares not do this, because I bet about 90% of Catholics would leave the church over it. Now in third world countries where the Catholic Church is all there is this may have an effect, but in the US there would be a mass exodus.

You said, “Ultimately, Truth is truth. You can reject it or not, but that's your issue, not the Churches.”

I agree.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
How can a baby, which the Bible says is always a gift from God be "an idol that replaces God or His will for the throne of your heart"??? This is the oddest reason to support contraception I've heard!

Basically it seems your argument is: (1) I want to control the number of children I have, so (2) I'll point out that some Catholics still practice contraception, so (3) I can ignore that teaching of the Bible and the Church. Is there something more there?

The Church tells you point blank: If you are practicing contraception you are living in grave sin. You should not accept communion. If you do, you will suffer the consequences that St. Paul clearly articulates in Corinthians, which may include death but certainly includes injury to your soul. Again, the Catholic Church proclaims the truth, you have the option of following it or not. This is free will. But, when you practice serious sin, you suffer the consequences now and in the next life. Period. How much clearer can it be?

The Church isn't concerned about whether people stay or leave. The Church's job is to administer the Sacraments and protect Truth. The Church also doesn't excommunicate murderers, adulters, etc. Why? Excommunication condemns people, so the Church tackles this very lightly hoping that you will see the light and reverse your ways.

Remember the parable of the seed. The weeds that grow up among the seed are removed not immediately, for fear of destroying good plants. But at the end of time, God removes the weeds. That is the perfect articulation of why the Catholic Church is very patient with sinners - mercy, mercy, mercy. God hands out the justice in the end, so until then the Church is merciful and calls sinners to repent. Personally, I thank God every day for this truth!

Hope this helps.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You said, “How can a baby, which the Bible says is always a gift from God be "an idol that replaces God or His will for the throne of your heart"??? This is the oddest reason to support contraception I've heard!”

There are many things that are a gift from God, but used or viewed in the wrong way can cease to be a gift. Whenever we place anything on the throne of our life except Christ we are setting up that thing as an idol. Christ will suffer no substitute for the headship of your life. This includes children. See Luke 12:51-53; and Matthew 10:37-39

You said, “Basically it seems your argument is: (1) I want to control the number of children I have, so (2) I'll point out that some Catholics still practice contraception, so (3) I can ignore that teaching of the Bible and the Church. Is there something more there?”

My rational for accepting contraception or not has nothing to do with the Catholic Church or for that matter Catholics themselves. I believe that I have spelled out why I believe as I do in other posts on this site. The only reason I have even mentioned the Church was to point out the hypocrisy of your statement that this is proof positive that the Catholic Church is the one True Church, when the Church itself teaches that contraception is ok, as long as its done their way.

You said, “The Church tells you point blank: If you are practicing contraception you are living in grave sin. You should not accept communion. If you do, you will suffer the consequences that St. Paul clearly articulates in Corinthians, which may include death but certainly includes injury to your soul. Again, the Catholic Church proclaims the truth, you have the option of following it or not. This is free will. But, when you practice serious sin, you suffer the consequences now and in the next life. Period. How much clearer can it be? The Church isn't concerned about whether people stay or leave. The Church's job is to administer the Sacraments and protect Truth. The Church also doesn't excommunicate murderers, adulters, etc. Why? Excommunication condemns people, so the Church tackles this very lightly hoping that you will see the light and reverse your ways. Remember the parable of the seed. The weeds that grow up among the seed are removed not immediately, for fear of destroying good plants. But at the end of time, God removes the weeds. That is the perfect articulation of why the Catholic Church is very patient with sinners - mercy, mercy, mercy. God hands out the justice in the end, so until then the Church is merciful and calls sinners to repent. Personally, I thank God every day for this truth!”

This is not how Christ and the Apostles saw it. See Matthew 18:15-17; I Corinthians 5:1-13 By what right does the Church ignore these passages?

In Christ,

Thomas

OK, one more time....

The Roman Catholic Church (and all Christian Churches before 1930) condemn the use of artificial contraceptives NOT because the end result is avoiding pregnancy, but because contraceptives alter the marital act so as to render it infertile. Couples using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy do not alter the marital act, they observe the signs and wait for the fertility to subside as it always does during each cycle.

Does this distinction sound like Catholic hair-splitting? Interestingly enough, Sigmund Freud (atheist and no friend of any Christian ideals) defined sexual perversion as any act which separated the sexual act from its procreative purpose. Notice the Natural Family Planning does not do this but that Artificial Contraceptives do.

Also notice that this argument is exactly the same argument which distinguishes heterosexual acts from homosexual ones. Debaters on both sides of the fence all agreed that the reasons for accepting/rejecting contraception are the same reasons for accepting/rejecting sodomy.

Protestants who so gleefully embrace Luther's reforms would be wise to listen to his rejection of contraception and homosexual acts. Otherwise, any moral and doctrinal stability they believe they have would be mere illusion.

I have a question for anyone willing to answer it.

It has been posted in various articles that It's not the churches job to condemm. Is it not the churches job to discipline it's members?

That would seem to be what Paul is clearly teaching in Galatians 5:1-13. If the church knows that someone is practicing sin, Paul says we should separate that sin from the church body.

I think some people posting here are confusing condemming someone with disciplining them. Discipline is NOT condemnation.

Now this BLOG claims that the Roman Catholic church is the church of the apostles and it follows the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the apostles.

If this is so then why don't they discipline members they KNOW are in a habitual sin? The Apostle Paul says that we should get leaven out of the church.

Correct me if I am misunderstanding what has been posted here, but it sounds like you are saying the church has a hands off policy, even when they are aware of a serious sin?

Peter dennied Jesus three times, and Jesus asked him if He loved Him three times. Peter publically dennied Jesus and Jesus publically restored Him by having him pledge his love publically three times..

Willful sin must be dealt with by the churches leaders. Paul was pretty clear, he wasn't wishy Washy. It appears that the church is NOT being true to what Paul taught on church discipline.

If contraception is a grave sin and the church is aware of someone practicing this sin, then why doesn't the church discipline members committing this sin ?

Grace and Peace,

Clem

Broken,

You said, “The Roman Catholic Church (and all Christian Churches before 1930) condemn the use of artificial contraceptives NOT because the end result is avoiding pregnancy, but because contraceptives alter the marital act so as to render it infertile. Couples using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy do not alter the marital act, they observe the signs and wait for the fertility to subside as it always does during each cycle.”

I clearly see the distinction between ABC and NFP. One uses man made efforts to render the martial act infertile, the other does not. I get it. What I don’t get is why this distinction matters. We use man made efforts to change things all the time without it being condemned as sin. In all of this I am making the assumption that both methods are used with the proper mentality.

You said, “Does this distinction sound like Catholic hair-splitting?”

Yes indeed in does.

You said, “Interestingly enough, Sigmund Freud (atheist and no friend of any Christian ideals) defined sexual perversion as any act which separated the sexual act from its procreative purpose. Notice the Natural Family Planning does not do this but that Artificial Contraceptives do.”

Quoting Freud doesn’t hold much weight with me. Freud had all kinds of wacked out ideas.

You said, “Also notice that this argument is exactly the same argument which distinguishes heterosexual acts from homosexual ones. Debaters on both sides of the fence all agreed that the reasons for accepting/rejecting contraception are the same reasons for accepting/rejecting sodomy.”

Not true. I can point out a number of clear passages in Scripture which condemn homosexuality. On the other hand I see no passages in Scripture that condemn contraception. This is enough for me.

You said, “Protestants who so gleefully embrace Luther's reforms would be wise to listen to his rejection of contraception and homosexual acts. Otherwise, any moral and doctrinal stability they believe they have would be mere illusion.”

By this logic, if I agree with someone on one point then I must of necessity agree with them on all points. So if you are in agreement with Freud’s thoughts above then you by necessity must agree with him on all his points, otherwise all your moral and doctrinal stability would be a mere illusion. This is ridiculous. I disagree with Luther here for much the same reason why I disagree with him when he made anti-Semitic statements. Because they are wrong. Where I agree with Luther on many points, my faith is not tied to my belief that all his teachings were infallible. I think that this is so foreign to a Catholics’ way of thinking, that it is hard for some to understand this.

In Christ,

Thomas

Jay or Nickie or whoever wants to answer the questions below.

Both Jay and Nickie have stated in their posts
that :
(1) It is NOT the job of the church to condem
a member. (I believe that this is what has been
posted by both parties ?)

It has also been posted that:

(2) Excommunication is a condemnation and that is why they rarely excommunicate someone.

(3) I believe that it has also been posted that the church does not have the power to condem someone to hell ?

(4) If the church can not condem a person's soul to hell. What does the condemnation of Excommunication do?

(5) Isn't what is prescribed in Galations 5: 1-13
really Excommunication ? Isn't Excommunication really a separation of a church member from the church body and NOT a condemation of their soul to hell? (Giving the offender's body or flesh over to Satan, so that the soul might be saved ?)

(6) If the Catholic Church considers contraception Sexual sin, wouldn't this sin
qualify as one of the sins described in Galatians 5:1-13?

(7) If the answer to #6 is yes, then why doesn't
the Catholic church of 2004 practice the steps
prescribed by Paul in Galations 5: 1-13 and if necessary separate Church members who Practice the SIN of contraception (ABC) ?

This is obviously the procedure the Apostle Paul
directed the local church to follow when it encounters the sins he listed by a church member.

If the Roman Catholic church is following the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles then WHY is it that they DON'T SEEM TO BE FOLLOWING THIS SCRIPTURE... ?

I have attended Protestant churches that have asked people to leave when they refuse to repent
of a sin such as those listed in Galatians 5.

AS members of the body of Christ and as members of a local church we are accountable to one another.

I look forward to your thoughts on these issues.

Grace & Peace to You,

Clem

All,
I'm a father of eleven children. My wife and I have used natural family planning for most of our married years. We are both incredibly fertile, and used the method to space births about two years apart. I have a Catholic co-worker, who is about the same age as I, who uses ABC - he and his wife are childless. I guarantee you that the methods, and the end result, are not the same. When my wife and I were abstaining, and passions were running high, we gave those passions to the Lord - they were his to increase or decrease. Do you suppose that my co-worker on the ABC bandwagon is giving his passions to the Lord? Couples using NFP are incredibly tuned into one another, and their relationship is incredibly tuned into God - the divorce rate among NFP users is a fraction of 1%.

The Church condemns errors and the teachers of errors - this is what St.Paul is talking about - nothing has changed. There is a difference between being a thief, and teaching that stealing is okay - the latter will be condemned by the Church - the former has already been condemned by God. If all sinners are kicked out of the churches, we will have a lot of empty buildings. St. Paul talks about his own difficulty avoiding sin.

One needs not to preach the obvious: the writers of the Old Testament did not, for the most part, need to preach the evils of contraception to a race that was enamored with fertility. The Christian church has always taught that contraception is wrong - early on it had to fight against Roman decadence.

One can use scripture to justify nearly any sin. Those churches that claim to follow 'scripture only' are currently spinning like crazy to justify homosexual marriage, in spite of the fact that it is roundly condemned in scripture. Where do I find in Sacred Scripture that the Bible is to be our sole source of doctrine? How could such an important point be left out of scripture?

A Catholic mindset is conditioned to view a church's dogma and miss the rest. While the Anglican Church in 1930 was the first DENOMINATION to recognize contraceptives as legitimate tools of Christian stewarship, the issue was dealt with much before then. For example, the editor of a Nonconformist weekly journal in the United States wrote in 1893,

"There was a time when any idea of voluntary limitation was regarded by pious people as interfering with Providence. We are beyond that now and have become capable of recognizing that Providence works through the commonsense of individual brains. We limit population just as much by deferring marriage for prudential reasons as by any action that may be taken after it."

Me

Absolutely God has given us a brain to use. But to call our own personal conscience the guide for our moral behavior is a route to relative madness.

Let me see if I have you correct... please correct me if I misrepresent you.

Premises: 1) God is good 2) God gave us a brain 3)All God creates is good This inference is 1)having a brain is good... I can agree with that.

The problem is the unnamed editor makes a false inference. Premise:1)Because a brain is good that infers 1)all man creates from that brain is inspired by God and is also good.

Put his/her invalid inference to the historical test. The editor states "Providence works through the commonsense of individual brains."

Well commonsense told Nazi Germans that Jews could be used as the scapegoats for a major depression. By your logic that is a good moral thing. The majority of pre civil war Americans supported slavery by commonsense. By your logic that is good. The majority of Spartans supported infanticide of weak looking infants...commonsense...must be good.

You see the flaw with this false predicate. Man has no right to determine good from evil. God determines good from evil.

So this moral relativism is junk. Do you determine good from evil based on a poll number? Do you determine what your "personal Jesus believes?" Do you morph the scriptures to fit your Jesus?

In Love

when we were one

I was the Catholic Church that opened the door to contraception in "Christendom."

"NFP," the modern version of what was some decades ago the "rhythm" method, is what Onan was practicing. Promoters of "NFP" point out that its users must be prepared for "surprise" pregnancies (their term for a contraceptive technique's failure). Well, Onan's technique took advantage of natural characteristics and has a high probability of failure. Why, if God had just left him alone, Tamar probably would have become pregnant fairly soon anyway.
But God was so offended by what Onan did, and why he did it, that He struck him dead. Certain modern "translations" (more like commentaries) make it appear that Onan indulged in his vice repeatedly before God's anger mounted to the point of putting him to death. However, older translations make it clear, as does any Hebrew-English parallel edition, that Onan was killed immediately, like the moment his semen hit the ground.

Bob,
Hate to blow a huge hole in your argument, but NFP IS NOT THE RHYTHM METHOD. The rhythm method is stopping intercourse before finishing. In NFP you have normal sex, you simply abstain during certain times of the month. It is much, much different from what Onan did - I strongly encourage you to learn more about NFP before condemning it.

God bless,
Jay

Bob and Jay are both dead wrong in their terminology.

Contrary to what Bob says, Onan did not practice the rhythm method. Onan practiced coitus interruptus and/or masturbation.

Contrary to what Jay says, the rhythm method is NOT stopping intercourse before finishing. Stopping intercourse before finishing is called the withdrawal method or coitus interruptus.

The rhythm method is an attempt to schedule intercrouse to avoid pregnancy by looking at the lengths of previous cycles. This is different from Natural Family Planning which looks at signs from the current cycle to determine times of fertility and infertility.

Both rhythm and NFP, however, are morally permissible in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. The rhythm method has fallen into disuse not because of moral problems but because NFP methods are far more effective and determining fertility and infertility.

Back to Genesis 38, where God slays Onan for spilling his seed on the ground. Assuming Bob knows something about NFP and the rhythm method, he should know it does not involve spilling of semen on the ground. Intercourse takes place in the normal fashion. All that NFP does and rhythm does is attempt to inform the couple when their body is fertile and when it is not.

The conjugal act is scheduled but never altered by the use of rhythm or NFP. In addition, infertility is merely observed rather than induced. I would hope that Bob understands the difference between observing something and causing something to happen.

Let me point out the fallacy of of catholic chruch in this matter. Ok, there are two things that I feel need to be said. When people condem contraception, they say it is wrong due to natural purpose. Sex is for conception and not for pleasure. Ok, if that concept is true than this next argument would also be true. Tree's are for food. So in that case we shouldn't build houses, boats, or other structures out of them. Well let me say that does not make sense at all since Jesus rode on a boat and didn't condem it at all. SO you CAN use something for something other than it's natural purpose ALONG AS the bible doensn't condemn it. SO this whole natural purpose thing is not a biblical princple. The bible does not mention in it, period. Also this whole onan thing. The reason he killed Onan was because sex with another women other than your wife is a sin, other than if your brother died and you were fulfulling the law. Because he purposesly did not impregnate her, it than became adulterly which is confirmed by other verses that condemn adultery as a sin and punishable by death.

Phil,
The reason God killed Onan was because he used contraception. Just to clarify, under Levitical law Onan was required to marry and have sex with his brother's wife, since his brother had died. I doubt God would punish him for following the Levitical law that God had given the Jews.

Keep in mind, Onan had married her at this point - again according to Levitical law - but simply practiced contraception, which the Bible plainly states is why God killed him.

Until the 1930's every Christian church condemned contraception as immoral. Every one. Isn't it odd that from the time of Jesus until the 1930's everyone knew contraception was immoral?

God bless,
Jay

Phil,

I realize I am repeating myself but to date no one on this blog has even tried to refute these claims, but there are numerous reasons to believe that Onan was slain for spilling his seed rather than for failing to provide an heir for Tamar:

1. failing to provide an heir is an omission while spilling seed is an act of commission. The Bible uses the phrase "hardness of heart" to describe sins of omission. But in Genesis, it says that what he did was wicked in the eyes of the Lord. This is the language of the sins of comission rather than omission. Thus favoring the interpretation that Onan was killed for spilling seed.

2. Judah, Onan, and Selah all failed to provide Tamar with an heir. But God kills only Onan. This favors the interpretation that Onan was killed for something more serious than failing to provide an heir.

3. The book of Leviticus dictates the penalty for failing to provide an heir is for the woman to take the man's sandal, spit into it, and let the rest of the community call the man funny and humiliating names. This also suggests that Onan did something more serious than fail to provide an heir.

4. The passage of Genesis describes Onan's sexual practice of spilling seed in explicit detail. The Bible only speaks of sexual acts explicitly when condemning it (in Ezekiel for example). When it speaks of sexuality in praiseworthy fashion, it uses oblique and highly symbolic language (in the Song of Songs for example). This also suggests that the spilling of seed was immoral.

5. Sola Scriptura Protestants (including John Calvin and Martin Luther) universally accepted this interpretation as biblical up until the 19th century. This interpretation was rejected by the same theologians who decided that Jesus was not born of a Virgin but was instead conceived out of wedlock, that he engineered his death in a desperate attempt to have an impact on his world, that he was not the Son of God, that miracles performed by the Apostles were fanciful tales fabricated to advance the early Church, that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, and that he will not return. This re-interpretation of Scripture has less to do with rejecting "Catholic inventions" and more to do with rejecting moral truths which survived the in all Christian communities despite the Protestant Reformation.

Are you telling me that John Calvin and Martin Luther are proponents of Catholic fallacies?

I am Catholic and I believe contraception is okay, more then 90% of Catholics use contraception not just some, but the majority do. Contraception is here to stay!!! GET USED TO IT JAY!!!

liberalCatholic,
You belong to a Church that not only teaches that contraception is a sin, but it is a mortal sin. Please take five minutes and read it in the Catechism.

This is not a democracy: in other words, just because others are doing it does not make it okay. For example, 100% of people sin and yet the Church persists in teaching that sin is wrong. Is it okay for you since everyone else is doing it? No. And if you persist in using contraception, what will your excuse be? As a Catholic you know it is mortal sin. Yet you choose it over your faith, over your Church and over your God.

On a side note: not sure where you got the 90% number, but I would venture to say it is way off. Unfortunately a lot of Catholics do use contraception (particularly in the US), but that doesn't make it okay. And it will never be anything but a mortal sin.

I hope you will prayerfully reconsider your position. Or at least stop telling others you are Catholic, since you clearly don't believe what the Church teaches.

God bless,
Jay

Post a comment