Ecumenical complacency? (Re: Eastern Orthodox)

[sola_scriptura]

Again – being that the “Rhythm method” has been officially endorsed by the RCC it’s ridiculous to say it holds a superior view as compared with protestants in this regard.

Isn’t the RCC view against contraceptive use based on the commandment to be fruitful and multiply? Isn’t the intent of the rhythm method the same as contraceptive use (at least among married couples)?

Duh …

I would like to see Christianity as a whole move back to the views of God – which is no rhythm method, no contraceptive use, no other new innovative techniques to avoid having children – period!

 

[Peter_J]

Obviously latex condoms were not available to Onan – so he pulled out prior to ejaculation.

In two speeches by Pope Pius XII in 1951 the “rhythm method” (which is exactly what Onan did) was formerly accepted into Catholic teaching.

I don’t really want to get into a big discussion about birth control (although I don’t doubt you can find plenty of posters here to debate with), but I would like to correct 1 thing: The “rhythm method” is not what Onan did. The “rhythm method” is a form of selective abstinence (i.e. abstaining whenever conception is seems most likely). It is not intercourse + withdrawal.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I don’t really want to get into a big discussion about birth control (although I don’t doubt you can find plenty of posters here to debate with), but I would like to correct 1 thing: The “rhythm method” is not what Onan did. The “rhythm method” is a form of selective abstinence (i.e. abstaining whenever conception is seems most likely). It is not intercourse + withdrawal.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s viewed as the “calendar method” or pulling out (as Onan did). The intent is still the same – to enable sex and simultaniously avoid pregnancy, violating the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Obviously the use of contraceptives avoids having to “pull out” as well (I agree this topic is bizarre – but it is important so mature Christians do need to address it).

So there’s one of two ways to look at this – but neither of those ways can justify a logical distinction between artificial birth control and using natural methods.

We can either say that the command to be fruitful is an affirmative duty – but it does not create a negative restriction. In other words as long as married couples bear children (if biologically able) then every act of sex within marriage does not require an intent to bear more children. Or we can take the classical view – which is that every act of sex must have as its purpose child bearing. Frankly, scripture does not provide a huge amount of guidance on this issue.

The sin of Onan had more to do with failing to live up to his duty to procreate with his brothers wife (after his brother was put to death by God) & produce offspring for his brother. It was a selfish act, because Onan knew the offspring would not be his. So frankly it’s unclear whether the act of withdrawal had anything to do with God’s anger (since there is no prohibition on this practice enumerated in the law). The better view seems to be that it was Onan’s selfishness & failure to live up to his duty, rather than withdrawing that aroused God’s anger.

 

[Sailka]

Liberal protestant denominations do openly teach contraception is acceptable. However, conservative protestant denominations hold a different (although I concede inconsistent) view regarding this practice.

Many observant Catholics hold a far looser view toward alcohol consumption as compared to many (particularly conservative) protestants (I’ve known of some priests who were by any objective standard drunkards).

I agree – however, God’s laws are not ambiguous or open to subjective interpretation. For example I would say that:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

means:

1. Fornication
2. Idolatry
3. Adultery
4. being an effeminate (having feminine qualities untypical of a man, or unbecoming delicacy or over-refinement)
5. Homosexuality
6. Thievery
7. Covetousness
8. being a drunkard
9. being a swindler
10. being a reviler (to constantly use abusive language)

are sinful.

With regard to contraception – obviously the chief verse used for this is:

Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother (Genesis 38:8-9).

Obviously latex condoms were not available to Onan – so he pulled out prior to ejaculation.

In two speeches by Pope Pius XII in 1951 the “rhythm method” (which is exactly what Onan did) was formerly accepted into Catholic teaching.

Someone would have to explain to me how the rhythm method differs from the use of contraceptive devices – but I’m sure the church has some creative explanation for this?

Of course the truth is there is no difference – both methods endorse family planning. Under both the rhythm method or more effective contraceptive use the couple is having sex with an intent not to procreate. Hence under the very same justification the RCC uses for prohibiting contraception its own prescribed rhythm method must also fail.

I believe the rhythm method and contraception are equally sinful – I’m looking forward to the creative spin telling me why I’m wrong.

The EOC view has also changed (although perhaps not officially since they do not view sacred magisterium as an appropriate way to work through matters of doctrine).

I note the protestant reformers were all dogmatically against the use of contraception (in every form) and did not depart from the view of Rome (the reformation was not about redefining sin – to the contrary).

                                                                                           Several  pointers, brother:

(1) Spilling seed on the ground is not contraception. It is avoiding fertilizing woman during her fertile period.

(2) Contraception is ‘chemical/mechanical/physical’ prevention of conception. It is not natural.

(3) If you notice, God took the life of Onan also, for spilling his seed on the ground, instead of in Tamar, his brother’s widow. Is great reference for masturbation being a ‘death in God’ (mortal) sin.

(4) NFP (natural family planning) is totally Natural and not sinful way of preventing pregnancy. Is Opposite of sinful, unless is done for selfish reasons to prevent pregnancy. NFP is the Only 100% effective, and beautifully Natural-------avoiding the Fertile period of the woman---- by Not Copulating. Honors the Womans fertility, and becomes Most romantic, by the Husband savingf his seed for 10 days for his Wife.

(5) The Catholic Church teaches scientific NFP to qualified by Marriage couples. The ‘rhythem method’ was primitive counting days earlier method for not copulating.

(6) Again, brother, not copulating is not contraception. and is the Only ideal way to avoid pregancy and STD’s. Most romantic too!
Live in Jesus. Tony :blushing: :hug3: :getholy:

 

[Peter_J]

It doesn’t matter whether it’s viewed as the “calendar method” or pulling out (as Onan did). The intent is still the same – to enable sex and simultaniously avoid pregnancy, violating the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

If you want to make an argument that it doesn’t matter whether you use withdrawal or rhythm, because the intent is the same, then you’re perfectly welcome to. (I don’t want to get into an argument about it – I do sometimes, but right now I’ve got enough on my plate without adding another debate to it.) But that is not what you said in post #19: rather you said that the rhythm method “is exactly what Onan did”. That’s a clear misrepresentation of fact (which you don’t seem willing to admit).

 

[sola_scriptura]

If you want to make an argument that it doesn’t matter whether you use withdrawal or rhythm, because the intent is the same, then you’re perfectly welcome to. (I don’t want to get into an argument about it – I do sometimes, but right now I’ve got enough on my plate without adding another debate to it.) But that is not what you said in post #19: rather you said that the rhythm method “is exactly what Onan did”. That’s a clear misrepresentation of fact (which you don’t seem willing to admit).

If I wasn’t clear in my last post then apologies. I did think the “rhythm method” included both “withdrawal” and the calender method (this also seems to be the common perception). I admit I’ve never been a student of this topic. So if it doesn’t include withdrawal (under official church doctrine) then fine – my apologies (and I readily concede my mistake).

However, logically speaking it makes little difference whether one invokes the calendar method or uses artificial contraception – the INTENT is still the same, to avoid pregnancy (and the result as well – although of course artificial methods are perhaps more reliable)?

The RCC has always held a negative view of things it views as unnatural (notwithstanding there is no biblical support for this fixation). So they will make the claim that because contraception is unnatural it is sinful (while the rhythm method is natural and therefore not sinful). However, the sin the church states this practice violates is equally violated by any family planning technique (whether natural or unnatural). Hence, the distinctions it draws in this area are bizarre.

 

[BlestOne]

If I wasn’t clear in my last post then apologies. I did think the “rhythm method” included both “withdrawal” and the calender method (this also seems to be the common perception). I admit I’ve never been a student of this topic. So if it doesn’t include withdrawal (under official church doctrine) then fine – my apologies (and I readily concede my mistake).

However, logically speaking it makes little difference whether one invokes the calendar method or uses artificial contraception – the INTENT is still the same, to avoid pregnancy (and the result as well – although of course artificial methods are perhaps more reliable)?

The RCC has always held a negative view of things it views as unnatural (notwithstanding there is no biblical support for this fixation). So they will make the claim that because contraception is unnatural it is sinful (while the rhythm method is natural and therefore not sinful). However, the sin the church states this practice violates is equally violated by any family planning technique (whether natural or unnatural). Hence, the distinctions it draws in this area are bizarre.

Sola… let me dispel part of your belief… The Catholic Church teaches prayer and discernment before using natural family planning and that the reasons for avoiding have to be grave. We are charged with praying to discern if God is calling us to parenthood or another child. Then, once we discern God’s will, not our own we are charged to accept HIS will for our lives… granted, many people do not always put their selfish concerns aside for the will of God, but that is their failing, not the fault of the premise behind natural family planning. As for all of us, I think we can say that if we look close enough we can see God’s will for us clearly at times, yet at other times it seems to be a struggle… True?

 

[Peter_J]

If I wasn’t clear in my last post then apologies. I did think the “rhythm method” included both “withdrawal” and the calender method (this also seems to be the common perception). I admit I’ve never been a student of this topic. So if it doesn’t include withdrawal (under official church doctrine) then fine – my apologies (and I readily concede my mistake).

However, logically speaking it makes little difference whether one invokes the calendar method or uses artificial contraception – the INTENT is still the same, to avoid pregnancy (and the result as well – although of course artificial methods are perhaps more reliable)?

The RCC has always held a negative view of things it views as unnatural (notwithstanding there is no biblical support for this fixation). So they will make the claim that because contraception is unnatural it is sinful (while the rhythm method is natural and therefore not sinful). However, the sin the church states this practice violates is equally violated by any family planning technique (whether natural or unnatural). Hence, the distinctions it draws in this area are bizarre.

I think you’re confused by the fact that we Catholics use the term “Natural Family Planning” to denote those methods that are morally accepted. We’re not saying that “naturalness” determines whether a method is acceptable or not – at least not if you mean “natural” in the sense of not involving technology. (Think of the statement “Sodomy is unnatural.” Obviously, that’s not talking about technology, nor is it denying that animals do it in the wild.)

 

[Sailka]

I think you’re confused by the fact that we Catholics use the term “Natural Family Planning” to denote those methods that are morally accepted. We’re not saying that “naturalness” determines whether a method is acceptable or not – at least not if you mean “natural” in the sense of not involving technology. (Think of the statement “Sodomy is unnatural.” Obviously, that’s not talking about technology, nor is it denying that animals do it in the wild.)

                                                                                           Technical correction, brother.   VERY few  animals sodomize.  Most  would kill or maul  another  animal trying to.  :dts:

Live in Jesus :yup: Tony

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think you’re confused by the fact that we Catholics use the term “Natural Family Planning” to denote those methods that are morally accepted. We’re not saying that “naturalness” determines whether a method is acceptable or not – at least not if you mean “natural” in the sense of not involving technology. (Think of the statement “Sodomy is unnatural.” Obviously, that’s not talking about technology, nor is it denying that animals do it in the wild.)

The RCC is saying a “natural” method of avoiding pregnancy is acceptable while an “unnatural” method is not – that’s the only relevant question here (we’re not discussing sodomy). Why the semantics? I suspect to avoid conceding the obvious.

However, it doesn’t matter, you can believe whatever you would like, no matter how absurd. The truth, however, is plain enough to see. From the perspective of “sin” the RCC view is no different than the protestant view. It still promotes a technique to avoid pregnancy, period! Give me all the semantics you wish, it doesn’t change that simple fact.

 

[Peter_J]

The RCC is saying a “natural” method of avoiding pregnancy is acceptable while an “unnatural” method is not – that’s the only relevant question here (we’re not discussing sodomy). Why the semantics? I suspect to avoid conceding the obvious.

However, it doesn’t matter, you can believe whatever you would like, no matter how absurd. The truth, however, is plain enough to see. From the perspective of “sin” the RCC view is no different than the protestant view. It still promotes a technique to avoid pregnancy, period! Give me all the semantics you wish, it doesn’t change that simple fact.

I honestly can’t say whether it’s fair to say that the natural in Natural Family Planning is “just semantics” or not. I’m willing to entertain the possibility – certainly referring to homosexuality as “unnatural love” is much less common now than it used to be. Should the language of “NFP” also be updated? I personally don’t feel qualified to say.

But semantics aside, I don’t think you have yet presented any argument for your claim that preventing pregnancy by one technique is morally equivalent to preventing it by another technique. (Granted, I haven’t presented an argument for my position either.)

BTW, for what it’s worth, I believe that NFP should be considered an exercise of economia. (The “default” method of spacing out pregnancies should be simply limiting the frequency of intercourse – unselective abstinence, if you will.)

 

[mark_a]

As I’ve said, I’m a fairly dogmatic protestant so IMO contraception is sinful.

But your opinion doesn’t mean squat to the world.

What does your church teach?

 

[jimmy]

Indeed – and we protestants have worked most of those heresies out of Christianity (though we have some heretics as well – but that’s OK because the elect will always be preserved)

Don’t you think that is a little arrogant that the protestants think they can judge all of the history of Christianity from Christ up till the 16th century simply because they don’t agree? I think it is very problematic.

 

[RNRobert]

When I read no graven images I understand no means NO! When I read ONE mediator I understand one doesn’t mean two or ten thousand (or how ever many saints you have). When I see people venerate dead bodies encased in glass tombs – yes I think it’s sheer heresy.

If God meant NO images, then how come God commanded the Israelites to make the bronze serpent and the cherubim on the ark? Was he contradicting himself, or was the commandment about WORSHIPPING images?

So best of luck to you and Mr. Hahn & sorry – but I will never swim with you in the Tiber.

Sorry you feel that way. Just curious though- if you’re that dead set against the Catholic Church, then why spend so much time on a Catholic forum? I have no desire to return to Protestantism, or to convert to Islam or any other religion, so I don’t spend my time on forums dedicated to other religions. Unless of course, you’re hoping to “save” some of us from the “Whore of Babylon.”