DeoOmnisGloria.com

If you use the argument of "the Christian Church got by without it for two thousand years" against contraception, how do you defend Natural Family Planning which only showed up in its current form in the 20th century? How about the reforms of Vatican II? The ideas expressed by Pope John Paul II in "Theology of the Body"? Novus Ordo?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need (and have plenty of) arguments against contraception that go deeper than "well we never had it before" as that road leads down the SSPX and sedevacantist path (which says that using Natural Family Planning is a venial sin, that Vatican II is heresy, Novus Ordo is invalid, that the throne of St Peter has been vacant since John XXIII, and the Pope John Paul II was a liberalizing modernist).

Valid point, Broken. I would however counter that their is a difference in changes of knowledge verses changes in moral behavior. It isn't that we got by without it, but moreso that every church considered it a serious sin until 1930's. I would argue that nothing defined as a serious sin can be converted into a good, especially in the case of the Catholic Church, which has the promise of Christ to preserve Truth.

However, we can gain knowledge and understanding of God and His laws in such a way to grow the faith. But we can not change moral wrongs into rights, if that makes sense.

God bless,
Jay

Briefly...against contraception how about John F. Kippley's argument:
"Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant".
As Christians we know that marriage implies a self-giving commitment, and contraceptive sex makes of the sexual act between husband and wife an act with serious reservations, a partial self-giving (not to mention the doors contraception open for sex outside marriage, and the doors the pro-contraception arguments open for abortion, homosexual sex...).
Contraception denies in a positive way (a firm NO) God's own right to create a new life.
Kippley's amazing work can be found in his book "Sex and the Marriage Covenant, a basis for morality" and also at www.nfpandmore.org
Did you know this book triggered Scott Hahn's conversion?
Rafa

Jay,

I guess what I'm trying to say is that modern forms of NFP are as "new" as the Pill. Now that I think about it I see two dangers with the appeal to "it has always been done this way before". First, our faith needs to reach deeper than this in order to respond to change. Second, practices are not protected by the seal of infallibility.

The documents of the Second Vatican Council are a great example of the Catholic Church maintaining its teachings yet altering it respond to a new climate. John Paul the Great's addition of the Luminous mysteries and "scriptural version" of the via dolorosa also constitute a "new thing" that the Church has lived without for thousands of years. And yet they make wonderful additions to the Christian life.

Thank you for clarifying that the appeal to prior Christian norms concerning contraception is on the understanding that we are talking about unchanging things like faith and morals rather than changing things like liturgical practices.

Perhaps the case can be made that contraception and natural family planning have both been around for thousands of years (even though 20th century knowledge has made both considerably more effective), that Christians have always allowed the second but not the first, and that the newer forms are morally equivalent to the older forms.

Jay wrote:
Do you really believe God wanted Christians to use it but couldn't communicate that until 1930?

Jay I think you have hit upon the fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic approach to doctrine and the Protestant approach to doctrine.

Protestantism is founded on the belief that the essentials of the gospel were obliterated from the Church by Constantine and restored by Luther.

Catholicism, in contrast, always searches for continuity of ideas. Many of John Paul II's ideas in contain revolutionary changes in perspective that would shock and offend most of us conservative and traditional Catholics (for example, he calls spouses to mutually submit to one another - traditionals denounce this because the wife must submit exclusively to the husband in unreciprocated fashion). But John Paul the Great goes to effort to trace the ideas he proposes back to Saints Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, and also appeals to and incorporates the truths revealed by modern biblical scholarship and exegesis (which conservatives traditionally reject outright).

John Paul II's ideas, revolutionary as they are get presented as a more clear presentation of that which was already there.

In contrast, the Protestant method is to look back on the past, declare it a big mistake, make a pronouncement, and declare with great pride that no one since the time of Constantine has had such a thought.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola predicted the whirlwind of Protestant denominational fracturing and instability in doctrine.

In short, the idea that embracing contraception is essential to God's plan on marriage and took until 1930 to reach Christendom is quite reasonable indeed from a Protestant perspective. After all, God's teachings on justification by faith alone were hidden until the 16th century.

I'm beginning to think that the whole line of "every Christian church condemned contraception until 1930" only holds sway with Catholics who believe that the Holy Spirit (rather than human wisdom) gifted the Church with infallibility in the areas of faith and morals.

Post a comment