Contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasev
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazzeto said:
This interpretation contradict Deuteronomy:

God’s perscribed punishment for the sin you have identified is public shaming, not death. God wouldn’t have put someone to death in Genisis for a sin which only demanded publish shaming under the much stricter conditions of reveled levitical laws.

Edit
BTW, I suggest you read “children of the refermation”, written by a Lutheran and attached as a PDF to this message.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the contradiction lies in the punishment rendered (clearly it does) or are you saying I’ve misunderstood the crime committed (if so you’ll have to clarify)?

A few observations.
  1. The Genesis passage was pre-giving of the Torah which prescribed the punishment for this crime as shaming in Deut. Furthermore, God was giving the punishment of “shaming” to Israel to carry out. This does not prevent God from taking the life of Onan for what he did generations earlier.
  2. The Genesis passage further highlights that the man disobeyed his father in addition to not fulfilling his duty to his deceased brother.
  3. This passage in Deuteronomy still explains that the brother must take the wife and impregnate her. If this is the foundational Biblical-law for the Church to denounce contraception, the only logical conclusion is to perpetuate the mandate men taking their brother’s wives.
  4. Even the Catholic church does not believe it is bound by the entire Torah. It would be more consistent to just say “Because the Catholic Church says so” then it try to justify this from an obscure Old Testament teaching that the church rejects in reality.
Thanks for the PDF. I’ll have to read it later. Hopefully it’s relevant to the discussion at hand.

Still hoping someone can shed some light on:
  1. Is this Gen 38 passage the only proof text used to support this?
Click to expand...
  1. How is “Natural Family Planning” not condemned with this statement, “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)”?
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps you should do some research into the contraceptive issue. Some points to consider:
  • In the Scriptures, Children are always an unmitigated blessing–they are never a curse.
  • The one case in the Bible where we see someone deliberately frustrating procreation, he is punished.
  • Before 1930, the proahibition of contraception was not a “Catholic thing,” it was a “Chrisitan thing”. As usual, the Episcopelians were the first to cave to societical pressures.
  • There is an inherent difference in the mindset between artificial contraception and natural family planning. The former is forcing the body to work how you want ti to, and the latter is about working with the body to achieve the desired result. That being said, NFP can be, and is, abused.
 
jasev said:
Are you saying the contradiction lies in the punishment rendered (clearly it does) or are you saying I’ve misunderstood the crime committed (if so you’ll have to clarify)?

A few observations.
  1. The Genesis passage was pre-giving of the Torah which prescribed the punishment for this crime as shaming in Deut. Furthermore, God was giving the punishment of “shaming” to Israel to carry out. This does not prevent God from taking the life of Onan for what he did generations earlier.
  2. The Genesis passage further highlights that the man disobeyed his father in addition to not fulfilling his duty to his deceased brother.
  3. This passage in Deuteronomy still explains that the brother must take the wife and impregnate her. If this is the foundational Biblical-law for the Church to denounce contraception, the only logical conclusion is to perpetuate the mandate men taking their brother’s wives.
  4. Even the Catholic church does not believe it is bound by the entire Torah. It would be more consistent to just say “Because the Catholic Church says so” then it try to justify this from an obscure Old Testament teaching that the church rejects in reality.
Thanks for the PDF. I’ll have to read it later. Hopefully it’s relevant to the discussion at hand.

Still hoping someone can shed some light on:
Click to expand...
I’m saying that because your explanation contradicts Deuteronomy, that mean’s you’ve misidentified the crime. Further, you move on to try and apply a dispensational filter to the bible. I can sort of understand why you want to do it, I believe it was one of the early pre-trib evanglists who also evangalized the dispensational view, he claimed “it makes reading the bible easy”…

Well I’m sure it does when you run into apparent contradiction in interpretation, but it’s incorrect and this model contradicts the very nature of God. God is eternal, it’s difficult to grasp that as a mortal man, even when we see time travel in the movies that doesn’t quite cover “eternal”. God doesn’t move through time, God exists outside of time, Every moment of human history (including those not yet occured) are present to him. Right now Jesus is dieing on the Cross to God, right now Abraham is about to sacrafice Issac, right now he is administering punishment on Onan, right now he is giving Moses Levitical Law… All of this is happening right now to God, all if it is present all at one time.

Thus you see the problem with your interpretive model, if you try and say what you’re saying then God is talking out of both sides of his mouth so to speak. He is presently killing Onan for the same crime he is presently telling Moses should only punish with publish shaming.

Thus, the crime commited isn’t that he refused to have a child with his brothers wife. The worst that would have happend is some sort of curse, causing some sort of public shame. More over, I know some protistants try to guess at a movtive, but there’s a problem here too. If you try and do this, all of the sudden you’re reading into the bible, not reading it. God by Mose’s hand told us that Onan was killed because he did a detestable thing (that’s another problem with your interpretation, the same person who wrote Genisis wrote Deuteronomy).

Edit
BTW, also Onan isn’t the first or last person to disobey dad in the Bible, but if you try and say that’s why he died he would be the first to die for it, particularly like that. Jacob desived his father, for instance. And received the inheritance of Abrahams blessings (through Issac’s blessings) instead of Esau. He didn’t die, there are other examples.
 
CWBetts,
  • “In the Scriptures, Children are always an unmitigated blessing–they are never a curse.”
I don’t think that point has been challenged at all here.
Click to expand...
  • “The one case in the Bible where we see someone deliberately frustrating procreation, he is punished.”
The Genesis 38 passage? That’s under discussion right now and the evidence that this supports this argument is incredibly underwhelming. See above and below.
Click to expand...
  • “Before 1930, the proahibition of contraception was not a “Catholic thing,” it was a “Chrisitan thing”. As usual, the Episcopelians were the first to cave to societical pressures.”
You know, Catholic bashing really bugs me. What I’m amazed by is the amount of protestant bashing that goes on here, and out of the blue at that! Really, the comment about the Episcopalians caving “as usual”? I think even most non-Catholic Christians would be offended if they came in here and saw someone snipe Catholics with a remark of “As usual, Catholics are off molesting children again.” None of these comments need be said. Let the truth of a matter stand on its own. This kind of c**p really makes arguments smell as if you have a weak argument and must resort to name calling and put-downs.
Click to expand...
On top of this, who do you think really cares who held what beliefs regarding contraception before 1930? If anything, the more I discuss this with you guys, the more I would think thinking Christians would simply be embarrassed this was generally believed that long!
  • “There is an inherent difference in the mindset between artificial contraception and natural family planning. The former is forcing the body to work how you want ti to, and the latter is about working with the body to achieve the desired result. That being said, NFP can be, and is, abused.”
I see no logical difference at all. Really, it’s the same exact thing! “Natural family planning” is also “forcing the body to work how you want it to.” There really is no sane way of getting around that.
Click to expand...
crazzeto,

You are assuming far, far too much. I am not, and never have been, a dispensationalist. From the time I explored that framework to today I have wholeheartedly rejected it.

I’m not even trying to drive a wedge between the old and new covenants. I’m simply pointing out that Catholics do not believe they are to take the wife of a deceased brother and impregnate her. Am I wrong on this? I’m fairly certain the church does not teach this, but perhaps I’m wrong?

You said, “More over, I know some protistants try to guess at a movtive, but there’s a problem here too. If you try and do this, all of the sudden you’re reading into the bible, not reading it.”

Well, obviously I humbly disagree. I think you’re assuming far too much about my beliefs and interpretive approach and its getting in the way of reading/hearing me. That’s really the thing I hate about this kind of communication.
 
@jasev,

Actually I was doing my best to cover as many different angles as I could. Sorry about that aspect. So with that, I’m curious what you think about the integration of what we know of God, with scripture etc.
 
I think that the best way to understand the Catholic church’s stand on contraception is to read Humanae Vitae. It does represent the Church’s official beliefs on this subject. I think many, many people – Catholic and non-Catholic, and people on both sides of the contraception debate – are either intimidated by Humanae Vitae or afraid of what they will find there. In reality, it’s easy to read, very clear, and not intimidating at all.

I have encountered many Catholics who are afraid to even use NFP because they are afraid it is considered contraception. But a reading of HV would immediately clear that up. Here is a quote that I find useful:

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. **It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. **But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.” (emphasis mine)

If you are sincerely curious as to what the Church says about these issues, I would just go right to this source.
 
crazzeto said:
Edit
BTW, I suggest you read “children of the refermation”, written by a Lutheran and attached as a PDF to this message.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link (on Post #20). Very interesting – and encouraging to hear of movements in other denominations for a return to earlier teaching.
 
jasev said:
CWBetts,
  • “In the Scriptures, Children are always an unmitigated blessing–they are never a curse.”
I don’t think that point has been challenged at all here.
Click to expand...
There is most certainly a logical difference. Artificial contraception does things like changes the body chemistry to keep it from working properly. NFP requires an understanding of how the body works, and changing your behavior to match. Surely you can see the distinction. As far as my “Protestant bashing,” my statement was accurate. The Episcopalians were the first to embrace birth control, the first to ordain women, the first to ordain practicing homosexuals, and the first to bless homosexual unions. Furthermore, it is the only denomination to be formed based on politics, rather than theology.
Click to expand...
 
Sin of Onan-

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp
Onan was supposed to marry his deceased brother’s childless widow. This practice, known as the Levirate law (from the Latin levir, meaning “a husband’s brother”), was required by the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10) and was intended to insure an unmarried brother would “raise up seed for the deceased brother that his name be not blotted out of Israel.” …
he difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’” (Deut. 25:9).
Click to expand...
So , God did not kill Onan only because he did not fulfill the law as he already had a law in place for that . There clearly was another reason.

Here’s a paper written on the marital act as a communion of persons. Give that a read-

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/communionofpersons.htm
 
Cashue said:
I agree, you must either abstain completely from sex or you must put your wives life in the hands of the Lord. You must not violate the word of God, it says not to use contraceptive in the bible and this must be obeyed.
Click to expand...
It does?
where
 
jasev said:
I’m fairly certain I’ve been aware of Catholic’s distaste for contraception for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I ever really gave it much thought. As a fairly devout protestant and Bible student, I don’t remember ever having any qualms about it in the past. It just never really entered my mind. Certainly I don’t think I ever cared to debate it.

In any case, I get the impression, reading through posts here, that you guys probably get a lot of grief from protestants over this contraception business on a regular basis. Either that or you give protestants a lot of grief and get a bunch of flak back for it. Well I still don’t think I care to debate it, but now I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button issue for you guys.

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I’m interested in your take on this: My wife had seriously complicated pregnancies with both of our children. We thank God they are more than fine today. After our second child was born, the doctor strongly advised we have no more children. Would loved to have had a much larger family, but didn’t want to risk losing my wife… so I was the lucky one to “get fixed.” So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin? If so, why??

Peace.
Click to expand...
It’s a hot issue because everything Paul VI wrote in his encyclical Humane Vitae has come to pass. Artificial birth control was the first part of the slippery slope. And, if unwanted pregnancies ‘happened’ still, abortion was now available. The majority of Catholics do not seem to have the slightest concern over the use of artificial contraception since they practice it themselves. They do this because they do not believe that the Church speaks on behalf of Christ or God. They do this because they do not believe the Church is Who She says She is. And it all goes back to even doubting that Jesus was Who He says He is. The sad fact is, people are going to do what they want regardless. Eventually, some will ‘connect’ with the lightbulb at some point.
 
Seatuck said:
There is the Onan incident which has already been described.

Tradition is clearly against it. Oral and Written.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Sterilization prevented you from being in the assembly.
Douay Rheims. Dt. 23
Click to expand...
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

Who knew The Fiddler on the Roof had such great Catholic doctrine? 😉

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Seriously though, no argument from me if the church wants to defend it on the grounds of tradition or just a flat because Papa has the final word at home.

The Deuteronomy quote though, it really doesn’t make a great “proof text” for this. Like I pointed out either earlier on this thread or elsewhere, you don’t have to become a dispensationalist to recognize that not everything written in the Old Testament has direct literal equivalent for Christians today. Have any of you had any unclean meat to eat lately? Have you tied tassels on the corner of your robes? Not cut your beard (for you gentleman)? Have you kept any of the holy days to the letter as prescribed? Have you even kept the Seventh-day Sabbath as a day of no labor from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday?

I think almost all Christians can recognize these things had true spiritual value for their time, and they have true spiritual value for us as pedagogy and as we experience a greater fulfilled reality of what they typified.

That being said, if we’re going to sling proof texts regarding being a Eunuch as somehow relevant to contraception, we’ll have to consider Jesus apparently high encouragement of men to become Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 19:12[/BIBLEDRB]
 
jasev said:
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

Who knew The Fiddler on the Roof had such great Catholic doctrine? 😉

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Seriously though, no argument from me if the church wants to defend it on the grounds of tradition or just a flat because Papa has the final word at home.

The Deuteronomy quote though, it really doesn’t make a great “proof text” for this. Like I pointed out either earlier on this thread or elsewhere, you don’t have to become a dispensationalist to recognize that not everything written in the Old Testament has direct literal equivalent for Christians today. Have any of you had any unclean meat to eat lately? Have you tied tassels on the corner of your robes? Not cut your beard (for you gentleman)? Have you kept any of the holy days to the letter as prescribed? Have you even kept the Seventh-day Sabbath as a day of no labor from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday?

I think almost all Christians can recognize these things had true spiritual value for their time, and they have true spiritual value for us as pedagogy and as we experience a greater fulfilled reality of what they typified.

That being said, if we’re going to sling proof texts regarding being a Eunuch as somehow relevant to contraception, we’ll have to consider Jesus apparently high encouragement of men to become Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom:

[bibledrb]Matthew 19:12[/bibledrb]
Click to expand...
Right. Christ gave us the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth to guide us in which teachings he meant for us to keep.
 
tweetymom said:
Oran is taken out of context, but if you believe it so be it. I for one do not.
Click to expand...
“x is taken out of context”

Translation “I do not want to accept teaching y, which is based on x, and to defend my position, i must say that x is taken out of context.”

If the account of Onan is not based on frustrating procreation, then what are we to learn form the story?
 
CWBetts said:
“x is taken out of context”

Translation “I do not want to accept teaching y, which is based on x, and to defend my position, i must say that x is taken out of context.”

If the account of Onan is not based on frustrating procreation, then what are we to learn form the story?
Click to expand...
Disobedience not birth control. But you are free to believe what you may.
 
The marriage bed MUST remain undefiled. But HOW do we carry this command out?

The domestic high priest alone enters into the holy of holies. This must be done with great prayer and preparation.

Read the Pentateuch and think of yourself as the high priest entering the Holy of Holies. This will take a lot of time, prayer, and meditation, perhaps even many years.

God created the Heavens and the earth in the past. But God still creates a soul in a very sacred holy area . . . . In the womb of a woman. God comes to us in a very special way in the “holy of holies”. We get the sublime gift of being able to be co-creators with Christ! This can be done God’s way or in a perverted way. It can also be subverted.

Contraception violates the natural law. A natural law that people were held to with bodily life and death consequences before any written Scripture was given.

This BODILY consequence that people were held to in early salvation history is often part of what was given as revelation for us to try to see SPIRITUAL consequences of today I believe.

Since we are sinners, the natural law will not be seen as clearly as we’d like. Some people discern more of the natural law, others less and others much less.

This is WHY we need a magisterium (teaching office - the Pope and Bishops in union with him - CCC 100) to pass on the proper interpretation of Christ’s teaching.

In God’s very first revealed words to mankind we are told to “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Is contracepting “being fruitful” in the fullest capacity that we can?

If I were in that position, I would repent. I’d try to get my vas reversed if I could afford it (if any way possible). Then I would either abstain from conjugal union or practice natural family planning. I would read and re-read Humane Vitae and Castii Conubii. Since some translations of Humanae Vitae are better than others I’d read either from the Vatican’s website or get Janet Smith’s translation from “One More Soul”.

For people that think contraception is “exactly the same thing” as natural family planning, then practice natural family planning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top