Birth Control

[ak29]

Talking to this Protestant guy and we were basically discussing birth control, I tried my best to defend the Catholic position, and I think I did so decently. Anyway I was just wandering if somone can provide any Biblical passages to support our position. Any other insights you can provide that would aid me in my discussion would be helpful as well.

Some arguments he brought forth were, how can a Church continue to have a teaching that is not kept by the faithful, and only drives Catholics away, as well that this was different than other sins, in that this was not say a one time thing, but when a family makes the decision that they cannot have any more kids, they decide to contracept, and it is a decision that keeps going.

My rebuttal absically were, how can you reject it as a sin just because it is a one time decision that you continue to engage in over and over, saying that homosexuality follow the same path, of you deciding to engage in that lfiestyle, and then continually engaging in it. In other words how can you consider one a sin, and not the other, even though the thought processes are similar. I also said, that moral teaching should not be based on popularity and I would not want my Church to change moral teaching based on popularity.

I tried to discuss it with him, politely and with grace. Pleae feel free to critique my performance, provide the scripture I am looking for, and maybe offer your own points on what else can be said.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

ak29:

Talking to this Protestant guy and we were basically discussing birth control, I tried my best to defend the Catholic position, and I think I did so decently. Anyway I was just wandering if somone can provide any Biblical passages to support our position. Any other insights you can provide that would aid me in my discussion would be helpful as well.

The passage regarding Onan for one. But this is not likely to be much help because of the typical no-win scenario: non-Catholics say there is no Scriptural support for Catholic doctrine, and when we do show support, they say we are reading into Scripture.

Some arguments he brought forth were, how can a Church continue to have a teaching that is not kept by the faithful, and only drives Catholics away,

The Church does not abandon Truth for the sake of PR. I seem to remember the Bible having many hard teachings. All Christian denominations condemned contraception until 1930. It is absurd to think that every Christian was wrong for so long.

as well that this was different than other sins, in that this was not say a one time thing, but when a family makes the decision that they cannot have any more kids, they decide to contracept, and it is a decision that keeps going.

This person is darn right that this decision keeps going. Contraception becomes habitual. So habitual it effectively sterilizes a couple. My priest says he has seen this over and over: A couple comes into his office devastated that they waited so long to have children and now they can’t have them.

My rebuttal absically were, how can you reject it as a sin just because it is a one time decision that you continue to engage in over and over, saying that homosexuality follow the same path, of you deciding to engage in that lfiestyle, and then continually engaging in it. In other words how can you consider one a sin, and not the other, even though the thought processes are similar. I also said, that moral teaching should not be based on popularity and I would not want my Church to change moral teaching based on popularity.

I tried to discuss it with him, politely and with grace. Pleae feel free to critique my performance, provide the scripture I am looking for, and maybe offer your own points on what else can be said.

Thanks everyone.

Sounds like you did well. Pray for them. The Church’s teaching on contraception rather than driving people away has brought in some stellar people like Scott Hahn and Dave Armstrong.

Scott

 

[ak29]

Hmm, thanks for the insight, yeah I do encounter that sometimes when I provide scripture. Hes not a fundamentalist or anything like that. He even brings forth stuff he admires about the Catholic Church. He used to go to Baptist church, but left because he felt they were too"strict" and one of the examples he gave is that he disagreed with the way the Baptist Church doesn’t think Catholics are Christian.

This probably should go into another thread, but I might as well ask it here to save some time. He basically feels that all Churchs have deviated from the original Christian Church, which he sees as something different from the Catholic Church. Using the institutionalizing as a key date. Basically anything regarding the closeness of the Early Church to the Catholic Church(Which I consider the same thing.) would be helpful. One point I tried to argue was that things such as doctrine did not change, but rather now that the Church wasn’t being persecuted, it allowed for these doctrines principles and beliefs to evolve and become formailized. So again any links and insights about this would be helpful.

 

[Liberian]

AK29,

I think there is something in “The Fathers Know Best” on this site about artificial birth control.

I also know that artificial birth control was universally condemned by ALL of Christendom until 1930. That’s a lot of unanimity to go against–particularly since there aren’t too many other doctrines that all the Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox were unanimous about.

• Liberian

 

[CARose]

ak29:

… He basically feels that all Churchs have deviated from the original Christian Church, which he sees as something different from the Catholic Church. …

You may want to question him again on this point. On one hand he says he’s concerned that the Church’s have changed from what he assumes was a different, original Christian Church. On the other hand, he faults the Catholic Church for not changing to address the fact that there are so many members who don’t follow the teaching of no ABC.

You can’t have both, a church which changes it’s teachings to allow people to do that which has been taught as sin, and a church that retains the teachings originally given by Christ. This is exactly what makes the Catholic Church different from other forms of Christianity. The Catholic Church understands that we do not have the Authority to change the teachings given by Christ. Hence, even when many disagree, the truth remains immutable.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Vanny]

I am not a Catholic yet- still a Lutheran.(God willing will be Catholic someday if I can get past some barriers)
My husband and I have been involve in Pro-life for many years.
Of course-the issue of contraception must be adressed if you are honest with yourself.
DH and I have come to the conclusion that artificial contraception is against God’s will be much reading and study. We
Read the history of Planned Parenthood and writings of Margaret Sanger,
Then read a book called Blessed are the Barren about the History of Planned Parenthood- learned that EVERY Christian Church prior to 1930 was AGAINST artificial contraception until the Anglican Church at the conference of Lambeth.
Can’t get into all the reading we did- but there are Protestant Groups agains contraception (though they are few and far between)you can google them on the web.
Suggested reading for Protestants:
Humanae Vitae
Donum Vitae
The Bible and Birth Control by Charles D Provan-lists all the Protestant theologians throughout the last 500 years that spoke against birth Control including Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Calvin- all who interpretted the Onan pasage as being against deliberatly preventing births.
Also, the pill and many hormanal contreceptives work as abortifacients at least some of the time, and the IUD all the time- besides being harmful to women’s bodies in general.
NFP is very safe and effective.

 

[Christus_Rex]

Two brilliant C.A. tracts which I used in my Religion and Ethics project for school: #1 #2

There will probably be something in the Catechism aswell.

Michael

 

[Vanny]

Also, I think we have to ask ourselves- have things in the way of marriage and family gotten better or worse since the Pill was introduced in 1960? It was supposed to make things better for married couples -but look what happened
It has lead to promiscuity, divorce on demand , abortion on demand(because abortion always follows a contraceptive mentality)which has lead to more and more children growing up without both parents and all the problems we see associated with that- skyrocking STD rates, ect.
There were 4 predictions made in Humanae Vitae which have come true since the pill has been introduced:
Lack of morality among young people
Lack of respect for women
Governments forcing their subjects to contracept, be sterilized or abort
and general societal lowereing of standards and morality.
Can anyone argue these things haven’t happened.
As a protestant- I think the Catholics were right on that one.

 

[ak29]

Allright thanks guys, I am going to print out and read the tracks as well as all the other readings you guys pointed out.

I’ll probably be seeing him today, so I’ll try to bring it up, we usually have discussions about religion and spirituality.

I’ll try and give you an update, if the topic comes up today.

Thanks guys.

 

[CARose]

I’ll put in a quick prayer for the two of you. Remember to pray before you see him and then again during your conversation (quietly to yourself). If you find yourself getting heated by some of his uncharitable comments, pray while he’s talking and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

If you haven’t already done so, make certain that the two of you agree that what you want in your conversations is to get to the truth as provided by Christ. It’s not about who is right or which religion is more correct than the other, it’s about what did Christ come to teach. Eventually, I pray, it will be fully apparent to him where the truth of Christ resides most fully.

God Bless you and your friend,
CARose

 

[Vincent1560]

ak29:

Talking to this Protestant guy and we were basically discussing birth control, I tried my best to defend the Catholic position, and I think I did so decently. Anyway I was just wandering if somone can provide any Biblical passages to support our position. Any other insights you can provide that would aid me in my discussion would be helpful as well.

Some arguments he brought forth were, how can a Church continue to have a teaching that is not kept by the faithful, and only drives Catholics away, as well that this was different than other sins, in that this was not say a one time thing, but when a family makes the decision that they cannot have any more kids, they decide to contracept, and it is a decision that keeps going.

My rebuttal absically were, how can you reject it as a sin just because it is a one time decision that you continue to engage in over and over, saying that homosexuality follow the same path, of you deciding to engage in that lfiestyle, and then continually engaging in it. In other words how can you consider one a sin, and not the other, even though the thought processes are similar. I also said, that moral teaching should not be based on popularity and I would not want my Church to change moral teaching based on popularity.

I tried to discuss it with him, politely and with grace. Pleae feel free to critique my performance, provide the scripture I am looking for, and maybe offer your own points on what else can be said.

Thanks everyone.

I am an evangelical and am curious about the Catholic position on birth control. Where in scripture do you see a prohibition against (non-abortofacient) birth control? And please don’t cite Onan. The sins he committed were envy, pride, and disobedience to God’s command for him to provide his brother with an heir. The only way you can come up with a prohibition against birth control from that passage is by adding things to the text that aren’t there.

My second question is I don’t see why Catholics allow NFP but not condoms, both when used correctly have similar rates of pregnancy prevention and condoms have the added bonus of preventing STDs. If the concern over condoms is not allowing your marriage to be open to children, how is NFP any different? If you say God can still enable the woman to get pregnant using NFP, then surely you would agree he can cause the condom to be ineffective as well. This is a real stumper for me because although I disagree with the no contraception whatsoever position, I can understand it. I can’t understand the yes NFP, but no condom position.

 

[CARose]

Hi Vincent,

Are you sincerely interested in understanding the Catholic Perspective on these teachings? If so, may I direct you to an excellent paper written by the late Pope Paul IV called Humanae Vitae, it can be found at: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

In reading it, not being a Catholic, you may prefer to skip immediately to II. DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES, as Part I is a long statement regarding the authority of the Church to present the statements which follow. As a Protestant, these statements may get in the way. If you’re interested in hearing why the Pope believed himself to be so authorized and learn a small amount of what went into the making of this document, read it all.

An excellent taped series of talks that go through Humanae Vitae and why we today are called to live according to it’s teachings is “Humanae Vitae” by Dr. Janet Smith, published by St. Joseph Communications. You can find it at www.saintjoe.com.

I don’t think I’m qualified to state it better than the Pope and Janet Smith is excellent at working through the subject.

If that has whet your appetite, you may also want to try reading “Theology of the Body” by Pope John Paul II (“The Great”). He makes an excellent defense of human sexuality and the beauty of it when it is used as intended as the Marital Embrace.

Thanks for asking. I hope this helps. I wish I were better qualified to give a simple answer to your question. I’m still working on learning this stuff (I’m actually 1/2 way through a tape series on “Theology of the Body” myself).

CARose

 

[Fitz]

Vincent this is my response for you. When you practice NFP you are using timing and not artificial means. You are also open to the possibility of pregnancy because it could happen anyway. You are fasting from intimacy and there is benefit to that for many reasons. There is a different emotional component that is very healthy for marriage. I know I won’t do the topic justice but I have heard it eloquently explained on Catholic radio.

STD’s should not be an issue within marriage, right?

Now I have a question for you. I understand we are all God’s children. In your faith, how can you reconcile that it is OK to decide not to have children in a marriage or to limit it to the perfect two, one girl and one boy? I understand many non practicing or unfaithful Catholics do this, but it is not sanctioned by our religion. I almost see it as sanctioned by other Christian faiths. I have never understood that.

 

[mosher]

Vincent1560:

I am an evangelical and am curious about the Catholic position on birth control. Where in scripture do you see a prohibition against (non-abortofacient) birth control? And please don’t cite Onan. The sins he committed were envy, pride, and disobedience to God’s command for him to provide his brother with an heir. The only way you can come up with a prohibition against birth control from that passage is by adding things to the text that aren’t there.

My second question is I don’t see why Catholics allow NFP but not condoms, both when used correctly have similar rates of pregnancy prevention and condoms have the added bonus of preventing STDs. If the concern over condoms is not allowing your marriage to be open to children, how is NFP any different? If you say God can still enable the woman to get pregnant using NFP, then surely you would agree he can cause the condom to be ineffective as well. This is a real stumper for me because although I disagree with the no contraception whatsoever position, I can understand it. I can’t understand the yes NFP, but no condom position.

Leaving the scriptual basis to another I can address the issues that you address with NFP.

The Catholic perspective on NFP requires a bit of understanding of ethics but in short the difference between NFP and contraceptives as one being licit and the other not is a matter of intention. NFP cannot be used as a natural form of contraception. NFP can only be used if there is a grave reason to space out the number of children that God is willing to bless a family with. The operating word is grave which means that it must be for a serious good such as the event of if there were too many children all at once the family would not be able to provide for the basic needs of the family. While it is true that God will provide grace builds on nature.

While condoms are effective at preventing some STDs they are unable to stop the more serious and fatal forms of STDs. In the area of blocking STDs the Church requires abstinance and in its understanding contra contraception it is already understood that each person is to be chaste according to their state of life. Thus, in a marital relationship (which is the only licit situation in which sexual relations can be done) there would be no need to block STD’s. Stopping the spread of STDs is not an issue of contraception or not but rather is a question having to do with chastity.

NFP if used with the proper intention is always open to life because it has built into it in a natural way (according to the design of the human person) a margin of error that is uncontrolable by the practitioners of NFP. It is correct that contraceptives also have a built in margin of error however it is not in accord with the nature or intent of contraceptives nor does it justify the other moral issues involved.

Remember, the seed of abortion is the contraceptive mentality.

 

[Vincent1560]

Fitz:

STD’s should not be an issue within marriage, right?

Now I have a question for you. I understand we are all God’s children. In your faith, how can you reconcile that it is OK to decide not to have children in a marriage or to limit it to the perfect two, one girl and one boy? I understand many non practicing or unfaithful Catholics do this, but it is not sanctioned by our religion. I almost see it as sanctioned by other Christian faiths. I have never understood that.

As for STDS, in a perfect world I would agree. However in many thrid world countries women are subordinate to men (and the men do not love the women as Christ loved His church) and have to “accomodate” their husbands as a matter of law. However these men often have no qualms about cheating and seeing prostitutes on the side, and condom use in such cases (some countries the AIDS rate is about 50%) may be the best means to protect against STDS.

As for your second question. If a couple is called to have children they should. But Paul wrote that marriage is not only about producing children, but that one of its primary purposes was to prevent both spouses from engaging in sexual immorality.

1st Corinthians 7: 1-9 "1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I also do not think that married couples today are all called to have lots of children. Many Catholics cite “be fruitful and multiply” to demonstrate this claim but fail to consider the context of the verse in question, namely:

**Genesis1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” **

God gave that command to Adam and Eve the only two humans on the planet. Today there are between 6-8 billion human beings and we have filled virtually every habitable place on the planet. In fact high rates of starvation in many countries suggest we may be facing overpopulation. But the point is that objectively speaking we have filled the Earth and largely subdued it,so I don’t think that having lots of children is necessarily a biblical imperative any longer (although a couple should always pray about the size God intends for their family). Also Jesus and Paul both urged those who could refrain from marriage without falling into sexual impurity to do so. If the command to be frutiful and multiply hadn’t been fulfilled to an acceptable degree, why would they have done so? Thus I think marriage and sex do not have to be about procreation, but can be about a husband and wife lovingly communing with one another and helping preserve each other from falling into sin.

I would also like to add that this is my own analysis after having read the scriptures, and I can understand that others disagree. I do not want to stumble any of my Catholic brethren and would like them to remember the words of Paul.

**Romans 14:14 “14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Romans 14: 22-23 “22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”**

I am a bit nervous about posting on these kind of topics because I do not want anyone to sin as a result of my arguments. Therefore, for my sake and your own, if doubt remains in your mind after reading my post then it is still sin, whatever is not done out of faith is sin.

God Bless!

 

[mosher]

Vincent1560:

God gave that command to Adam and Eve the only two humans on the planet. Today there are between 6-8 billion human beings and we have filled virtually every habitable place on the planet. In fact high rates of starvation in many countries suggest we may be facing overpopulation.

The overpopulation theory has been largly discredited in recent years. It is a throwback from the same bad science that gave us globalwarming. The overpopulation theory today is only held by the UN, The World Population Fund, Planned Parenthood, and few uber-liberal political groups.

 

[Vincent1560]

mosher:

The overpopulation theory has been largly discredited in recent years. It is a throwback from the same bad science that gave us globalwarming. The overpopulation theory today is only held by the UN, The World Population Fund, Planned Parenthood, and few uber-liberal political groups.

I agree that we may not be overpopulated in the sense that Earth may be capable of supporting more people. However, given distribution problems with food supplies and the undeniable starvation happening in the third world, I thnk it is safe to say that it would not be prudent, at least in some areas of the world, to increase the population and may even be prudent to limit it (WE MUST NEVER EVER RESORT TO ABORTION/MURDER HOWEVER)

Also plesase check my previous post again because I have added an important qualifier to the end of it that I would like everyone participating to keep in mind.

 

[mercygate]

Vincent1560:

I agree that we may not be overpopulated in the sense that Earth may be capable of supporting more people. However, given distribution problems with food supplies and the undeniable starvation happening in the third world, I thnk it is safe to say that it would not be prudent, at least in some areas of the world, to increase the population and may even be prudent to limit it (WE MUST NEVER EVER RESORT TO ABORTION/MURDER HOWEVER)

Also plesase check my previous post again because I have added an important qualifier to the end of it that I would like everyone participating to keep in mind.

This is a great talk: nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/contraception-whynot.htm

You can get it as a tape here: omsoul.com/item140.Contraception%3A-Why-Not.html

I always like to say that NFP does *not *mean Not For Protestants! This should not be a “Catholic” issue. It really is a “human” issue – the centerpoint is what you think “human” life is.

 

[NickyCW]

Christopher West has some great resources on why Birth Control (and all other forms of sexual perversion) are wrong because they take away from our dignity as human beings. I recently read “Theology of the Body” and “Great News about Sex & Marriage” and thought they both were incredible and very complementary. He also has several free articles and audio clips on his website.

www.christopherwest.com

 

[Fitz]

Vincent1560:

I am a bit nervous about posting on these kind of topics because I do not want anyone to sin as a result of my arguments. Therefore, for my sake and your own, if doubt remains in your mind after reading my post then it is still sin, whatever is not done out of faith is sin.

God Bless!

No one will sin due to a discussion when they follow their faith. I am personally done having children and could be a grandmother if any of my children would get married! Faithful Catholics have had this discussion many times already, many of them with non faithful Catholics.

I have not always agreed with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of welcoming children into marriage. However that is when I was younger and more willful. I now understand it to be God’s will. I now think one of the main purposes of marriage is to have children.

Since you aren’t Catholic I won’t say you are wrong to interpret the bible as you do, but you are making yourself be the authority. We don’t do that as Catholics. I understand that to be the biggest difference between Catholics and other Chrisitans. Every Protestant religion is a spin off of either the Catholic faith or another Christian faith. All of the people starting their own religions had a disagreement and began anew.

I don’t want to argue the bible with you, not because I don’t study it. I do, every week in bible study at my Catholic church. However, I don’t go looking for passages to back up my beliefs. I listen to scholars that have the expertise, and for me that is the Pope, the Bishops, the priests, and the apologists.

God Bless you too!