DeoOmnisGloria.com

Dave:
I put this question to Jay on another section of this website. My question was: "Why does this particular website have such an anti-protestant bent?" It appears that many, many topics refer to, or at least discuss in their content, protestants and what they think and believe. And many times, I would add, making grossly incorrect statements about protestants. Jay stated that he was only trying to make contrasts between Catholicism and Protestant viewpoint but very often it just seems like protestant bashing. Why don't people just make their point about what they believe and defend it logically and/or biblically rather than trash another group of people because they don't see things like you do? Many times protestants are painted with the same brush on this website. Very often they (protestants in general)are talked about as if they were stupid, deceived, brainwashed , or just plain evil. You make the statement above that "many protestant churches have abandoned their position on abortion". This is probably not a true statement and it sounds like you are making generalizations. If you have facts to support this statement please list them.
I am not against defending the truth. In fact, the truth should always be defended vigorously. However, it should be done with "gentleness and respect" as the scriptures state and not with arrogance as is sometimes done on this website. I am almost certain that if you take a poll of all Roman catholics many of them use the "pill" for birth control. And to equate people who use the pill to abortionists is disrespectful to many good christians including Roman catholics. I agree the pill has allowed people to be more sexually active and promiscuous which is an abomination; but don't blame the pill. Don't minimize people's responsibility for their own actions. In the end people are responsible for what they do and it does not matter if the pill is available or not. The pill does not force people to become fornicators. That is ultimately their choice and their actions. What is wrong for a married couple to use the pill within the confines of their marriage if they do not want to become pregnant for whatever reason?

May God bless you always?
Ernie

Ernie,

One of the main functions of this website is to challenge the novelty of protestant theology and practice with the Truth of the Catholic Church as handed down for the past 2000 years. In that sense, it is "anti-protestant" by design since we are attempting to confront errors. That should not be confused with any sort of personal animus: the Church teaches and I whole-heartedly believe that honest protestants have a saving relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are properly called our brothers and sisters. If my post seemed uncharitable, I apologize. I assume a bit of "thick skin" on the part of those reading since the dialogues that take place here involve sensitive and deeply held religious convictions. The absolute last thing that I want to happen is to drive people away by acting in an uncharitable fashion.

As to the content of the post, my statements were based upon facts. I will offer you the following quotes taken directly from the websites of four of the largest protestant denominations in the country:

ELCA (largest Lutheran denomination): "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born . . . Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort."

Episcopal Church: "[The] General Convention of the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision."

United Methodist Church: "we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures."

Presbyterian Church: "The considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision.".

As you can see, my quote was totally accurate--MANY protestant denominations have dropped their opposition to abortion. Please note that I did not paint with a broad brush on this issue. As to the contraception issue, I did paint with a broad brush, and I challenge you to find any numerically significant protestant denomination that opposes contraception.

Yes, many Catholics utilize contraception. People are sinful. The question is not whether the members of the church sin, but whether the church itself has sanctioned that sin. In the case of protestant denominations, virtually all of them sanction the sin of contraception. The Catholic Church does not.

As to the link between contraception and abortion, my point was not that protestants who support contraception will always support abortion. Rather, the rationale that underlies both sins is identical. That is why all of the original proponents of contraception also advocated abortion. Please do some research on this point and you will discover that I am correct. So the question is simple: can what is good originate from what is evil? If abortion is fundamentally evil, and the source of the abortion movement was the same source as the contraception movement, ought not Christians be suspicious of the contraception movement? Of course protestants are no longer suspicious because they have forgotten the source of contraception.

Why is contraception evil? Simple: it invades upon the dignity of the marital embrace, the supreme expression of human love, which was created by God to reflect His own love. God's love is necessarily reproductive. By hindering the reproductive power of the most supreme act of intimacy that God has given us, we revile the act and deprive the matrimonial union of its God-given sanctity.

The suprise here is that every protestant knew this TRUTH between 1600 and 1900. Only in the last 100 years have protestants abandoned their adherence to this reality, supposedly on "sola scriptura" grounds. But if that was true, why was it Sanger and Goldman who drove the change (the agents of sin) rather than Christians themselves? Doesn't anyone find this troubling????

In Christ,
Dave

Ernie, Ditto

Dave:
Thank you for your response and your clarification of these issues. I am glad that you recognize that protestants can, and do, have a "saving relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".
Thank you for the references regarding different denominations that support abortion and I have to say that I stand corrected. I diligently searched the website of those denominations you mentioned who support abortion and I am totally disgusted. Your quotes were accurate,although I can't say that I am totally surprised as I believe some of those denominations also support homosexuality. This happens when one strays from the word of God and compromises the truth.

As to your point regarding contraception, I believe the Roman catholic church advocates the use of the "rhythm method". Why does that not "invade upon the dignity of the marital embrace...." and hinder "the reproductive power of the most supreme act of intimacy that God has given us" and "revile the act and deprive the matrimonial union of its God-given sanctity"? Is not the rhythm method a form of contraception?

As to why protestants abandoned "this truth" over the past 100 years, I suspect it is because the birth control pill and other modern forms of birth control have been invented only during this past century. I am against birth control methods that prevent implantation of the embryo after fertilization such as IUD's and "the morning after pill" but I don't necessarily see the evil in controling ovulation to prevent fertilization altogether as is done using birth control pills. (although I admit that there is some minor controversy as to whether the "pill" actually prevents ovulation or implantation. Most studies show that fertilization is prevented using the "pill" but that has come into question recently).

May God bless you always,
Ernie

There are some topics that I am in total agreement with the Roman catholic church on and stand by them in their efforts to reach the world with such as abortion, the sanctity of life, and homosexuality. However, there are still many other positions of the Roman catholic church that I have much difficulty agreeing with or justifying.

Ernie

Ernie,

It is interesting that you made the comment regarding homosexuality being loosely connected to abortion. I also see the connection, but not just in the straying from God's word. No church would stray from Scripture just for the sake of straying from Scripture. One must probe deeper to get at the fundamental root of why protestant churches are accepting abortion, fornication, contraception, masturbation, and homosexuality. And that root is a common one: the disordered understanding of the role of sexuality. Our society and we as individuals have a drive to experience the sexual act for the sake of the pleasure which it brings us. That drive is not itself evil--God created the act to be pleasurable. However, the physical pleasure of sex was created as a benefit to the two primary functions of sex.

First among those functions is the reproductive function. This cannot be seriously disputed. The sexual act is reproductive by nature. God's first command to man was to "be fruitful and multiply." In some sense you could call it the first commandment. As stated in my previous post, this sexual union is reproductive because it reflects the essence of God. The Father pours Himself out unselfishly into the Son. The Son yields Himself up in complete submission to the Father, giving all of Himself back to the Father. The Holy Spirit is the product of the love between the Father and Son. (I know the terminology here sounds both homosexual and incestuous, but keep in mind that God as a pre-existing being has no body and therefore no gender; gender is a creation of God.) In the same way, a man was created to pour himself out unselfishly into his wife, who in turn gives her body to her husband in an act of holy submission, and the product of the sexual act is a child, who is both metaphorically and scientifically the unity of the man and the woman.

The secondary function of sex is inseparably connected to the first, this being the unitive function. In the sexual act, man and woman become united as one flesh. The fullness of that unity can only be expressed in the form of a child, but the unity exists even when the marital union is not reproductive.

What has happened in the last hundred years is that society has abandoned any adherence to the primary purpose of sex. When a husband and wife use contraception, they are artificially abridging their fertility so that they may enjoy the pleasure of sex without the responsibility that must be exercised with the reproductive function. This has naturally led protestant churches to question prohibitions on things such as homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, and abortion. If sex may be enjoyed by married people without any reproductive purpose, why can it not also be enjoyed alone, with members of the same sex, or with multiple people. And if contraception fails (as it sometimes does) why shouldn't these same individuals be permitted to control their reproduction after a child is conceived. In other words, if you eliminate the reproductive function, you have eliminated the fundamental reason why God prohibits masturbation, fornication, homosexuality, and (though it can be prohibited on other grounds) abortion.

Your suspicion about why contraception was allowed in the 20th Century is incorrect. Contraception had been practiced for thousands of years before the pill. Just consider Onan in Scripture. Far more than the withdrawal method was used, as noted on this brief review of Ancient Contraception (many more examples could be given). More fascinating is this modern liberal commentary on contraception, which shamelessly acknowledges the link between contraception, homosexuality, fornication, and abortion (the references to the church fathers are particularly interesting). As a caveat, please note that we are fundamentally opposed to the positions taken by these websites, and many others like them. But it is fascinating to see that both Catholics and abortionists acknowledge the basic facts surrounding contraception.

Most of the protestant world, on the other hand, has taken a rather "ostrich-like" approach to the whole issue. Sort of "see no evil, hear no evil." As I have stated above, the reality is that protestants universally opposed contraception (which was being practiced) between 1600 and 1900. A few notable quotes can be found at Catholic Answers. Also, note that the first major protestant victim of the contraceptive lie was the Anglican Church (one of those referenced above who now also condone abortion and homosexuality). The Anglican Church caved on the contraception issue in 1930 at the Lambeth conference. The pill was not developed until 1950, and not marketed until 1960. As you can see, it was the work of abortionists like Sanger and Goldman that toppled protestant opposition.

The issue regarding NFP is more problematic. I commend to you the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, which covers this topic far better than I could. After you have read it, I would be happy to discuss its contents with you.

But ultimately, even if the conclusion was that NFP were also wrong, my point stands that contraception is gravely immoral.

In Christ,
Dave

Ernie, if you want facts about the abortifacient aspects of the Pill, you can just buy a package of birth control pills and it will come right out and admit it.

The pill has three effects, first to prevent ovulation, second to kill sperm, third to prevent implantation / nitidation of the fertilized embryo. The World Health Organization and the American College of Gynecology and Obstetrics does not define this as abortion because they define the beginning of pregnancy to begin (conception) at implantation rather than fertilization.

I know several pro-life women who were absolutely devastated to learn of the abortifacient properties of the Pill. They threw the pills out the day they learned but the news just crushed them even though they had acted in good faith. I only wish someone was there to help them through that traumatic time when they learned about it.

Dave:
You raise some interesting points. I wholeheartedly agree that society has perverted God's gift of sex. I acknowledge and agree with your comments regarding the 2 main functions of sex (reproduction and intimacy between married man and woman). However, I think it is a huge leap to go from enjoying sex "without reproductive purpose" with your spouse to enjoying sex "alone, with members of the same sex, or with multiple people". Eliminating the reproductive part of sex does not legitimize adultery, abortion,homosexuality, beastiality or group sex in any way.
Lastly, according to your definition of birth control and the Roman catholic stance on birth control (as read in the Humanae Vitae)the rhythm method also is immoral because the couple is deliberately avoiding reproduction to enjoy sex without the responsibility of reproduction, be it by natural or unnatural means. Yet, the Roman catholic church is okay with this particular form of birth control?

Let me end by making 2 specific points:
1. When it comes to sex, abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc. I am in agreement, for the most part, with the Roman catholic church stance on most issues. And many christians outside the Roman catholic church believe similarly as the RCC. The depravity of sex in society now is an abomination.

2. There are many "protestants" that do not agree with the stance of the Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, and presbyterian religions on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Therefore, it is unfair to lump all protestants together in regards to these issues. Churches do not stray away from God's word "just for the sake of straying from scripture" as you stated. But, unfortunately, they do stray away from scripture to serve their own purposes and agendas and compromise scripture due to pressures from outside influences (i.e. secular society, organizations). It is why we need to look to scripture for our answers to life issues and not religion.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,

My husband and I are certified NFP teachers. The Rythmn Method is no longer used. Natural Family Planning has taken it's place. NFP is NOT a contraceptive. A contracpetive is an artifical means of avoiding pregnancy. A contraceptive tells God, "I want to give my whole self to my spouse, oh wait, expect my fertility. We want to engage in intercourse,which You created, but we don't want to take the chance that You may give us a child."

God has a beautiful plan for marriage. He created women in a way that we are both fertile and infertile every month. He doesn't say that we can't engage in intercourse while we are infertile--actually, women are only fertile for about 5-7 days every month. So, NFP teaches couples how to recognize those fertile days that God, Himself, gave to us. Couples do this by the woman taking her temperature and checking for signs of mucus and ecological breastfeeding when a child is born. Then, if the couple has a serious reason to space their children they abstain from intercourse during the fertile days.

Also, if a couple is using NFP and abstaining during the fertile days it still leaves the door wide open for God. For instance, if an NFP couple goes out for a romantic dinner and decides they would like to have intercourse later that night, the wife may say, "Well, I'm fertile this week. Do we want to possibly conceive a child?" And the husband may say, "Well, you mentioned a few months ago that you were overhelmed with motherhood right now and wanted to wait awhile before we had another baby. Do you still feel overwhelmed, or are things getting better?" Then, the wife may say, "Actually, now that you are helping me with more chores around the house I am feeling better."

Research has shown that when couples engage in contraception, they can go years before having such a conversion.

Here's how the Couple to Couple League (ccli.org) answers your question:

"Isn’t NFP the same as contraception if a married couple is using it to postpone or avoid a pregnancy that they are not ready for?"

"The short answer is "No." The reason is, contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marriage act; NFP does not. In some ways, that may seem like a small difference, but in reality, the difference is huge and very important.

Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always taught that married couples have the right to "plan" their families, provided this is done in a responsible and just manner, and is done with the proper motivation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. 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. (emphasis in original text)

So, it is not "birth regulation" that the Church opposes, but selfishness and any immoral means of accomplishing that.

When a couple deliberately frustrates the procreative potential of the marriage act through contraception, they are acting against God's plan and design for marital love. On the other hand, when a couple who have a "just reason" for avoiding pregnancy choose instead to abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time of the cycle, they are not acting in violation of God’s design.

Abstaining from the marriage act does nothing to deliberately change the procreative potential of the marriage act because there is no act. Again, it is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a just reason, but how a couple postpones or avoids conception can be sinful or it can be virtuous."

Also, Ernie think about this: The Pill was released in 1963 and became legal in all states thanks to our Supreme Court in the Griswald case. And, our culture han't been the same since!

When the Pill was released, the liberal feminists touted that the Pill would give people greater sexual freedom. They could "test" out more sexual partners before getting married and this was seen as "sexual freedom or the "sexual revolution." The rate of pre-marital sex in high school is over 50% today and the rate of pre-marital sex in college over 80% today. It's rare, nowadays, for a couple to get married and both be virgins. Why is pre-marital sex a problem now, and it wasn't before the legalization of the Pill. I think it's obvious.

Because nearly all girls and women are on the Pill---so nearly all females are, in a way, available. Men know this. Men also know that if by some chance the girl did get pregnant, they always have abortion as their contraceptive back-up. Did you know that our Supreme Court has said that women have come to relie on their contraception; therefore, abortion must be legal in case their contraception fails??

From Professor Janet Smith, Ph.D, article entitled "The Link Between Abortion and Contraception" She states:

"Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles."

When we lived in Cambridge, MA I met a couple young mom's who were laughing about how many men they had sex with in college. Both said they were "so happy" they were able to "try out" different men and see which ones were better in bed. When I tried to talk to them about how wrong pre-marital sex was one mom said to me, "Oh, Liz...I've never met anyone like you. You are so cute and old-fashioned, but people don't live like that anymore." What gave them the power to think that it was OK to sleep with so many men? I asked them. They said, "The Pill, of course."

The feminists also said that the Pill would help lower the rate of un-wed pregnacies. Do you think it did?

No. Just the opposite occured. The rate of white un-wed pregnacies was at 6% in 1960 and in 1992 it had jumped up to 22%. The rate of black un-wed pregnacies was at 22% in 1960 and in 1992 had jumped up to 68%. (In the black ghetto of Cinncinatti the rate is over 90% today!!!) The rates keep increasing. What is going on??? Sexual Freedom---all thanks to the liberal feminists and their miracle Pill.

That's why contraceptives (the biggest one being abortion) have led our society towards homosexual marriage: If two hetersexual people in love can live together and not have children, then why can't homosexuals? They are both just two people in love engaging in sex with the same outcome= no children.

You may be interested in reading: "Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception"
by Sam & Bethany Torode

A remarkable little book that was written for protestants or others seeking to understand Catholic Church teaching about contraception and NFP. Readers are easily drawn into its personalistic style and rewarded with many jewels of wisdom. Refreshing and beautifully written.

Price: $12.00 126 pages

Blessings,
Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

Thanks so much for your well-researched and beautifully stated post. Also, thank you for the original tip that led to the article. Elizabeth gave my wife and I a copy of "Open Embrace" before we became Catholic. I strongly recommend that any curious bloggers read this book. The beautiful thing about this issue is that it can be a place of unity for Catholics and Protestants. Because it is something that is against the natural law, we can stand together in opposition to this evil, even if we cannot come together at the Lord's Table. I do not see this as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Unfortunately most protestants have lost their way on the issue.

Ernie, I am not lumping all protestants together on the abortion issue. As I stated, abortion can be opposed on the issue of murder, without reference to sex. Homosexuality is a bit different, and I honestly believe that if one can justify contraception, one can justify homosexuality or masturbation--it is only a matter of time. Regardless of all this, Ernie, I am still interested to know how you feel about the fact that it was the abortion movement that led protestants to accept contraception. Any comment on the historical development of protestant opinion on the issue? Doesn't it strike you as unlikely that for 1,900 years all Christians were wrong, and that finally, 2,000 years from when Christ died, we now are able to understand that God was not opposed to contraception all along?

In Christ,
Dave

Elizabeth:
Just a few things I want to clarify. In no way, shape, or form am I advocating pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or any other sexual perversion. Sex is ONLY for one man and one woman in the context of holy matrimony. Period.
You say the rhythm method is no longer used? NFP = rhythm method. Call it what you want but it is one and the same. However, you do make a good point in that the act of sex is not performed during the fertile days. So, Dave our discussion on eliminating the reproductive responsibility to enjoy sex does not apply because sex is not occurring at all during these times(whether for reproductive purposes or for intamcy). Got it. Makes sense now. However, what are the failure rates with the rhythm method? Maybe bad use of the word failure as I would not classify pregnancy as a failure. To get pregnant the bullet has to hit the bull's-eye. That would actually be a success, but you get my point.

Dave, I don't have any comments on the "historical development of protestant opinion on the issue". I have never looked into it to tell you the truth. Until this discussion on the issue I never really thought about it much. But I don't know and I don't care what the "protestant opinion" is on the matter. Or the Roman catholic opinion either for that matter. I only care about what God has to say on the matter. All I care about is what the bible says on this issue.

Lastly, I want to re-make my point from my last posting that neither of you acknowledged. Ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions. People have a free will and make choices and decisions. Whether the pill is available or not doesn't really matter. Whether abortion is "legal" in this country does not matter on a personal or individual level (I am not for legalization of abortion). Everyone is responsible for the choices they make. Granted, has the pill helped promote or buil-up the sexual revolution. I think there is no question that it has. Has the legalization of abortion made abortion more prevelant. Sure. But, Elizabeth, those young mothers you refered to made a choice to sleep with those men. Whether the pill was available or not is really not the issue. Did it make their choice easier. Probably. But they still could have chosen not to sleep with those men. Elizabeth, abortion is legal in this country. Does that mean you would consider having an abortion if you got pregnant or sleep with another man that wasn't your husband because the pill is available? Forgive me for answering for you but I don't think so! God has given us the ability, intelligence, intuition to make a lot of great discoveries and make a lot of things that make our life easier. But those "things" are not in and of themselves "evil". It is how people use them that is the issue. Man discovered the ability to extract the chemical digitalis from the foxglove plant to make Digoxin, a medicine used for heart failure to save people's lives. If a nurse takes this medication and deliberately injects 100 times the normal dose into a patient and kills the patient, is it the Digoxin that is evil or the nurse (or nurse's action)? Don't minimize people's responsibilties for their actions. The pill did not give those women "the power" to sleep with all those men. Ultimately they made the decision, pill or no pill. The pill or contraception does not excuse people or give them the right to engage in fornication, homosexuality, or masturbation. These things were around long before the pill or any other MODERN contraception.
You both mentioned how contraception has made the sexual revolution what it is today and keep linking contraception with promiscuity or homosexuality and I understand your points on these issues. However, just for the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a couple using contraception within the confines of their marriage if they do not wish to have anymore children? (When I say contraception I do not mean abortion, RU486, or any other form that results in the killing of the embryo, or prevention of implantation). I think there are a lot of people in this situation.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,

Biblical Evidence That Contraception Is Immoral

Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - the Lord commands us to be fruitful ("fertile") and multiply. We cooperate with the Creator's love.

Gen. 28:3 - Isaac's prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah (like Onan) also rejected God's command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - penalty for refusing to keep up lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the usage of the graphic word "seed," uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, highlights the reason for death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. The family reflects the Blessed Trinity.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches reject this teaching.

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. Deliberate sterilization is intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful.

Deut. 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to testicles. Hence, vasectomies are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing with many children. Contraception = not your will God, but my will be done.

Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. We must be open to God's gift of life.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse.

Mal. 2:14 - Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant - a supernatural exchange of persons with children as the fruit of the union.

Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. Contraception = God may want an eternal being created, but I say no.

Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, as God is three persons, yet one.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God's ability to "join" together. God's love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies.

1 Cor. 7:5 - natural family planning (NFP). Do not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 - husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church - by giving his entire body and holding nothing back.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g. surgery to prevent conception) is sinful. Some Protestant churches reject this teaching.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20- sorcery = "pharmakeia" = includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills = mortally sinful.

Ernie...here is an example of what the early Christians thought of contraception...

Epiphanius of Salamis (A.D. 375)

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Lactantius (A.D. 307)

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

Blessings,
Elizabeth

Ernie,

I don't think Liz or I are trying to minimize anyone's responsibility. I wholeheartedly agree that each individual bears responsibility for their actions. That having been said, you would naturally agree that a "just nation" (which is constantly venerated in Scripture) will have laws that restrict objectively immoral conduct (murder, theft, adultery, purgery, etc.) Adultery, together with contraception, fornication, homosexuality, and many more are no longer regulated by our society (as they once were) because our society is in a state of moral atrophy and collapse. As Christians, we ought to use the powers that God has blessed us with (including the power to vote) to change our own lives as well as to encourage change in the lives of those around us.

That having been said, the main point of my posting had nothing to do with encouraging people to change the law. Rather, it was meant to demonstrate to wayward Christians the immorality of contraception. Liz has given you numerous Biblical supports for this fact. However, it is unwise to rely solely on your own understanding of these words. The fact is, neither you nor I can understand Moses: we don't speak ancient Hebrew. Not many people do! So we must rely upon others. In the same way, the meaning of words can change as you progress through the centuries, or across cultures. Just ask a Brit what he means when he says he wants "chips". One of the best ways to understand what the Scriptures mean is to consider what others thought they meant, particularly those who were part of that culture or lived closer in time to the writings. Don't be so quick to disregard the wisdom gained by our older siblings in Christ. With that said, I restate my question to you, which is this: how likely is it that Christians (of all stripes) misinterpreted the Scriptures (which they both wrote and compiled) for 1,900 years, and yet modern Christians, not speaking the language in which Scriptures were written, living in a total different culture, a morally depraved world, and 2,000 years from when the Bible was written, managed to get it right only after listening to the teachings sprung on society by the mothers of the abortion movement? In all seriousness, I would like you to respond to this.

In Christ,
Dave

All,

If contraception (doing an act or ommission of an act that prevents conception) is intrinsically evil then why does the Catholic Church:

a. Allow its members to openly practice all forms of contraception and still remain members?

b. Allow some/most of its clergy and leadership to openly teach that all forms of contraception are ok without any repercussion?

c. Teach that some forms of contraception (ie natural family planning) are ok?

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

Your NFP question has been dealt with above.

As to your other questions, when you figure how to enforce discipline on 1 BILLION people and half a million priests, you give the Pope a call and I'm sure he would love to hear it (particularly since he is perhaps the strongest enforcer of dogma in 100 years; formerly known as the Pope's rottweiler). LOL!

In Christ,
Dave

Ernie wrote:NFP = rhythm method. Call it what you want but it is one and the same

You are right to equate them in a moral sense but not in a practical sense. There are many forms of NFP including but not limited to: Billings Ovulation Method, Sympto-Thermal (aka Serena), Creighton, and the outdated Rhythm Method.

The Catholic Church permits all of these methods of NFP. Rhythm is not used very much any more because it is based on the often false assumption that a woman's upcoming cycle resembles cycles from previous years. Modern methods such as Billings, Serena, and Creighton use current observations to glean information about current fertility levels.

However, what are the failure rates with the rhythm method? Maybe bad use of the word failure

People often use the term "surprise pregnancy rate" and measure in terms of a "Pearl Index" which is the number of pregnancies in a study multiplied by 1200 divided by the number of woman-cycles in the study.

If you are interested in these rates, you must distinguish between the various forms of Natural Family Planning as the rates change from method to method. I believe the rate for rhythm was about 20% surprise pregnancies per year. Modern methods have 1% or less when used according to guidelines (method-failure rate) and 5% or less when including people who did not follow the guidelines even though they intended to (user-failure rate).

All I care about is what the bible says on this issue
Then you need to carefully examine Genesis 38 as that constitutes the strongest Biblical injunction (the prohibitions against sorcery / pharmakeia would also be worthy of your attention) against coitus interruptus, contraception, and masturbation.

During the 19th century, Protestant scholars started to suggest that Onan was slain for not providing Tamar a child rather than for coitus interruptus / masturbation. To earn my namesake, I will mention a few contexts to help us determine why Onan was slain by God.

Context of the verse: "what Onan DID was wicked in the Lord's sight". Failing to provide Tamar a child is a sin of omission, the bible uses language like "hardness of heart" to describe sins of omission and the word "did" to speak of sins of commission. The Bible condems Onan for something he did rather than something he failed to do.

Context of the chapter: Onan, Judah, and Selah all fail in their duty to provide Tamar a child. Yet the Lord slays only one of them. This suggests that Onan's conduct was in some way different. The difference mentioned in the Bible was the spilling of seed.

Context of the Torah / Pentateuch: The book of Leviticus proscribes a penalty for failing to provide a child for the wife of a dead brother. The penalty is having the woman spit in your shoe and letting the rest of the town laugh at you and call you funny names. If failing the Levirate duty carries such a light penalty, one would think Onan committed a different and much greater sin than failing his Levirate duty if the Lord were to slay him.

Context of the Bible: The Bible uses oblique and metaphorical language to speak of sexuality in a positive light (e.g. Song of Solomon) and sexually explicit language only to condemn an act (e.g. Tale of Two Prostitutes in Ezekiel). Genesis 38 has an explicit description of Onan's sexual conduct, in context the purpose of being explicity should be to condemn it. It failing the Levirate duty were the only problem, the Bible would not bother to explicitly mention spilling seed as it would be an irrelevant detail. (No such details are mentioned for Judah and Selah)

Context of other Biblical Scholarship: for 1900 years Catholics and Protestants (such as Luther and Calvin) all understood Genesis 38 to forbid masturbation, contraception, and coitus interruptus. The style of biblical exegesis which re-interpreted this passage also concluded that Mary was not a Virgin when she gave conceived and gave birth to Jesus, that Jesus was not God, that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, that Jesus was under the mistaken impression that he would personally return within 50 years of his passion when in fact he would not return at all, and that the tales of miracles in the Bible are legendary mythical fables aimed at teaching lessons rather than describing actual events. Many Protestants reject this style of biblical exegesis as distorting the truth so why do they so readily embrace the conclusion that Genesis 38 speaks only of the Levirate duty?

However, just for the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a couple using contraception within the confines of their marriage if they do not wish to have anymore children?

Just to clarify, the Roman Catholic Church DOES encourage couples to exercise prudence and responsibility in planning their families. That is, to use their reason, their senses, and their faith to function as good stewarts of their families.

What the Roman Catholic Church teaches is that one must not separate the act and pleasure of sexuality from its final purposes of procreation and/or completely giving oneself to one's spouse. To separate the act from its purpose is to violate a fundamental principle of Natural Law (for anything to flourish, its final purpose must be respected). It also destroys God's gift of fertility.

Notice that Natural Family Planning does not separate the sexual act from its procreative purpose. Couples avoid the sexual act during fertile times and wait for the Lord to perform this separation as he regularly does during each cycle. Waiting for something to happen and making something happen are two very different things.

Also notice that Natural Family Planning does not destroy the gift of fertility, it avoids using the gift. Imagine if you gave someone a precious gift and they destroyed it because it wasn't convenient for them to use at the time. Would you not rather they simply not use the gift at the time?

One thing you may wish to consider is that when Christians in the 20th century debated the moral permissibility of using contraceptives, one thing that scholars on BOTH sides of the issue could agree on was that the arguments on both sides applied equally well to homosexuality. That is, the arguments denouncing contraception apply equally well to denouncing homosexuality and that the arguments allowing contraception apply equall well to allowing homosexuality.

Namely, if contraception is permissible within a marriage even though it prevents procreation, then so is homosexuality. Conversely, if contraception is not permissible because it separates the act of sexuality from its purposes of procreation and complete unity, then neither is homosexuality.

Furthermore, Supreme Court Judges have ruled that the American lifestyle is based on the "the need/right to have access to abortion should contraceptives fail". Namely, if you want contraceptives in the American lifestyle, you must also bring in abortion.

To sum up: Catholics (the strongest objectors against abortion), biblical scholars, Supreme Court Judges, Planned Parenthood (the strongest supporters of abortion) all agree that accepting contraception is the first step towards accepting abortion. Why do pro-life Protestants maintain that they are not on a slippery slope?

Thomas wrote why does the Church:
a. Allow its members to openly practice all forms of contraception and still remain members?

The Church exists to provide clear guidance, advice, and help to those who seek the Lord, it does not exist to weed out disobedient traitors although it will point out distortions in teaching in their mandage to teach clearly. They merely follow the example of Our Lord in this matter. Our Lord rebuked the pharisees so as to provide clear teaching but allowed them to choose their own path. Our Lord's disciples wished to call down fire from heaven to destory a town which rejected the teachings of Jesus. Our Lord instead told them to move on and preach to others.

The Church has made it very clear on repeated occasions that those who practice contraception (or any other grave sin) must go to confession and resolve never to use contraceptives again before receiving communion. Given Our Lord's reluctance to coerce people into obedience, I think the Church is wise to allow individuals to decide for themselves whether they should receive communion.

[Why does the Catholic Church] Allow some/most of its clergy and leadership to openly teach that all forms of contraception are ok without any repercussion?

First of all, bishops are fairly autonomous when it comes to their conduct. I do not believe the Pope or the Vatican has the authority to force a resignation when a bishop strays. Also, even if it does have this authority it may or may not be wise to exercise it in this particular case. Especially when considering that at the Last Supper, Our Lord broke bread with Judas Iscariot - the most infamous of traitors. No one stripped Judas of his apostolic authority as a bishop - he remained an apostle (albeit a treacherous one) until his death.

Could / should the clergy be doing more than it currently is? possibly. The Church does not enjoy the charism of infallibility when it comes to procedure and conduct - only in teaching on matters of faith and morals.

Though to be honest, I'm more concerned with my own grave sins rather than disciplining someone else's grave sins. I'm more concerned with my own silence on contraception in my social circles than I am with the silence of my priest and bishop. I'm more concerned with my lack of kindness and love when I do speak up on these matters than with any improvements the bishops and priests could make to their conduct. I'm more concerned with the bad example I set for my kids when I yell at them than with the bad example some bishops and priests may be setting.

Do I long to hear a priest / bishop say during Mass that contraception is wrong? Of course I do, but I also know that what I directly wish for may or may not fit Our Lord's timing. For all I know, the Lord may be waiting for those who support Church teaching on this matter to grow a little older (since a huge proportion of them are still under 25 years old and are younger than the first World Youth Day) and enter the clergy or positions of influence in the laity.

After all, so many cardinals had rejected foundational Christian doctrines, that many Catholics feared these cardinals would elect a heretical successor to Pope John Paul II (there has been historical precedent of heretical Popes). But by the time Pope John Paul II passed away, many of these treacherous cardinals were ineligible to vote because of their age. In fact, 114 of the 117 cardinals eligible to vote were picked by the late John Paul II.

The faithful have often had to wait patiently for deliverance. For 400 years Israel was in slavery to Egypt. For 70 years Judah was in captivity to Babylon. For 490 years Judah awaited the return of the Messiah.

"God grant me the courage to change the things I should, the serenity to accept the things I should not change - and the wisdom to know the difference".

Thomas, thank you for your questions and challenges. Answering your questions has helped me to quell my impatient desires to see the Vatican exercise a heavy hand and publicly, specifically excommunicate those who support abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and contraception.

For years, I have watched pro-abortion politicians and pro-contraception aquaintances receive communion while I have had to refrain from receiving the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ because I was unable to make it to confession the day before.

I still hear pro-abortion politicians call themselves "devout Catholics who receive communion every week". I often sit in the pew instead of receiving communion knowing that this is a public statement that I am not as devout as I would like to be. This made my blood boil and knowing that this was merely insufferable pride on my part brought little peace.

Thomas, answering your questions has helped me to see that the Lord and the Catholic Church is patient with others because the Lord and the Catholic Church is patient with me.

Elizabeth:
Thank you for the biblical references regarding contraception/sex. I don't think every verse you mentioned supports the point you are trying to make. Some verses are taken out of context and have nothing to do with contraception but there appears to be enough evidence in scripture to support your point that contraception is not pleasing to God.

Dave,
I thought your comment about enforcing discipline on 1 billion people and 1/2 million priests was funny. I agree with you that a just nation would have laws that restrict immoral behavior. A just nation is a nation "under God" which the USA once was and is slipping away from. I did not state that abortion being legal in this country was OK. My point was that just because it is legal does not change how each individual should behave or excuse the actions of an individual. Ultimately, every woman who has an abortion chooses to have an abortion.

Dave, calm down, my brother. I sense a tone in your writing. I will answer the question you posed to me. My answer is..... I don't think that in my posts I ever stated that "protestant" denominations were correct on their position, or sometimes lack of position, regarding contraception. In fact I believe I have suggested that the Roman catholic church is probably more in line with the scriptures on this topic than are protestants. The questions I posed in my posts were sincere questions in an effort to learn and grow, not necessarily to disprove your points. Protestants are not perfect. That is why I try not to view things from the protestant viewpoint vs. Roman catholic viewpoint. I try to see things from the truth of scripture. Protestants don't always get it right and sometimes Roman catholics don't always get it right. On the issue of contraception it appears you are in line with God's word. I hope I answered your question.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,

Everyone senses a tone when I write. There must be a disconnect between my thoughts and my words! As I stated before, I harbor no harsh feelings. Just a passion for honest, frank dialogue about Christian life and thought.

Thanks for being so willing to talk. I am so appreciative of bloggers like you, Thomas, SandT, and others on this site because there are so many people (my dad, brother, and mother included) who refuse to even engage in such conversations. In the end, the heart that searches for Truth will find it. God bless you!

In Christ,
Dave

Dave:
Amen. Thank you also for your honest and sincere discussion. I agree with you. If we seek after the truth with all our hearts and with all our minds we will find it with the Lord's help. I have a passion for the things of God and I try to seek after righteousness. I too have family members who choose to remain silent on these issues. I'm sure I will talk to you again in another section.

May God bless you always, Dave
Ernie

Ernie, were my answers to your questions at all informative?

I stumbled across a real gem last night:
The Catholic Church Has the Answer by Paul Whitcomb.

I didn't know where to post that most excellent writing because it addresses so many topics we have been discussing here: The Inquisitions, Contraception, Thomas's "uncatholic" Bible verses and much much more, whether Catholics believe they can earn their salvation, devotion to Mary.

Elizabeth, thanks for pointing out the connection between sorcery (pharmakeia) and contraception. I had previously been relying only on Genesis 38 for scriptural evidence against contraception.

Another intersting thing to note is the Story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5. Their deaths are extraordinary in many ways. They are two of the only three people slain by God in the New Testament. They are the only couple slain by directly by God in the Bible. Sapphira is the only woman slain directly (Lot's wife was indirect) by God in the Bible.

What was their sin? They appeared to be giving everything to God, said they gave everything to God, but were in fact witholding for themselves. They could have kept everything to themselves without angering the Lord but they were slain for their dishonesty.

Paul Whitcomb astutely points out that this is precisely what contraception is. This also illustrates the difference between contraception and Natural Family Planning.

What did Ananias and Sapphira do? They went through the motions of giving everything to God, appeared to give everything to God, and yet did not give everything to God. Peter makes it clear they were slain for their lack of honesty rather than for the lack of generosity.

What does a couple do when they use contraception? They go through the motions of giving everything to each other, appear to give everything to each other, and yet do not give everything to each other. They offend each other and God's gifts through their dishonesty rather than through their lack of generosity.

When a couple which uses Natural Family Planning, they do not go through the motions of giving during the fertile time, they do not appear to do so during the fertile time. During the infertile time, they do give everything they have to each other. A couple using Natural Family Planning might be rightly accused of not being generous but they may not be accused of dishonesty - which is the fundamental problem with contraception.

I suspect that the "comments" section is not displaying correctly because of one of my posts. I think the hyperlink is making the comment too wide and ruining the layout.

Hopefully this repost will address the issue by placing the hyperlink to
The Catholic Church Has the Answer by Paul Whitcomb sufficiently far down. His answers are clear and concise. I found his insights into the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) particularly enlightening.

Post a comment