Bible and Contraception

[DailyBread]

“In the New Testament, it is possible that the Greek
“pharmakeia” refers to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” in general
was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known
that potions were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a
pregnancy. The typical translation as “sorcery” may not reveal all of the
specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the
passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual
immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder. (Gal. 5:19-26;
Rev. 9:21, 21:8). Thus it is very possible that there are three New
Testament passages condemning the use of the products of “pharmakeia” for
birth control purposes.”
Found this as an interesting read by I believe John Kippley (who I believe he writes on here sometimes). Put it out there for discussion.

 

[CCM08]

The entire problem with Catholic reasoning on birth control is it conflicts with their own position. They pull out ECF quotes to support it, and those monastics certainly were opposed to birth control. The problem is those same monastics directly attack NFP, St. Augustine wrote:
“You warn us to watch the time after the purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse. From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust.”
So yes, this radical positon that the only reason for sex was children and sex without the possiblity of children was evil existed. However, none of the Council’s ever accepted anything close to this radical position and saints like St. John Chrysostom were writing strongly in opposition to this radical position.
The Bible, the ECF’s, and the Ecumenical Councils could not have commented on modern barrier forms of contraception. The earliest technology of that sort would have been condoms made from sheep stomachs in the late 18th century.
As such the RCC’s position on forbidding technology but not NFP is inconsistant and illogical. A marriage in which the partners are actively charting cycles and refusing to have relations when a child might be produced is no more “open to life” than a marriage in which in barrier contraceptive is used. Not to mention the position is reflective of the writings of monks that were rather radical on the few occassions they actually did bother to write anything about marriage.
As to the OP “pharmakeia” would have referred to toxins used throughout the Roman world to cause abortions.

 

[DailyBread]

Actually the word includes any strange drugs or potions and Church father’s made comments on drugs or potions that caused sterility. As for NFP and contraception being the same, I think you are missing some key philosophical points as to morality based on circumstance, actual act, and intention of that act that need to be reflected upon to see the difference between the two. Many only look at intention as lump NFP and contraception as the same when they are clearly different (one makes intercourse infertile, the other abstains; two different acts, same intention (when NFP is used to avoid preg)). I suggest you read Dr. May’s Book on Catholic Sexual Ethics or Catholic Bioethics to see this difference.

 

[Evan]

NFP is not allowed, even to Catholics, at any old time they want. They first need to dicern a true need for spacing the children granted to them in the marriage.

NFP is just the proper way to support your marriage when you cannnot have children.