S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
The Old Testament and New Testament do not explicitly prohibit abortion either.
- Status
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
Well it was and is a very important issue, however, it’s not logical for people to believe that God put everything we need to know for salvation in a Book. Poor Christ is probably smacking His head with His hand and saying “I founded a Church for you and gave you intelligence which comes with common sense! Why aren’t you people using any of these things!?” Which is a rhetorical question since He already knows why: It’s because everyone is trying to escape His cross in favor of their own light weight, streamline, and arrow dynamic crosses. You know the ones that require little to no obedience and not as much self-sacrifice.
C
Calliso
Guest
That is a big part actually of why so many Catholics I think have a hard time accepting the teachings on contraception. Or more specifically why NFP is allowed but all other contraceptions are banned. These people are using their godgiven intelligence and commonsense and coming up confused because things just donlt add up.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
Hey look common sense regarding NFP vs ABC!
Hey even more common sense regarding NFP vs ABC in this link:
priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
God Bless and your welcome.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Actually, the Bible teaches that life begins in the womb and tells us not to commit murder. There are many biblical references to life in the womb and science of course backs this up. And even with all of this evidence, the Church originally taught that personhood did not occur until the “quickening”.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Ok! So we can actually agree that there is no real scriptural basis for the Church’s teaching on contraception! It is based solely on tradition.
P
PatriceA
Guest
Still didn’t read the link, did you?
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
Apparently not. The Church traditionally holds (based on scripture and tradition) a pro-life position, whether it is on procreation, abortion, euthanasia or outright murder. These elements cover the gamut of human propagation and life cycle. We as Catholics believe that life is sacred and we are to be open to and supportive of life.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
NO! What we can agree on is that the little bit of Sacred Scripture we do have regarding contraception should be taken in the light of the Sacred Tradition the Church uses which was handed down to the Church by the apostles who were taught by God Himself! This is what I follow and this is what I believe. And this seems to be what you will continue to ignore because it doesn’t specifically say in the Bible “Thou shall not use a rubber, or the pill, or any other form of ABC!”
L
LaSainte
Guest
Yes! I’ve read it before today and it still makes no sense as to why anyone would interpret the story that way.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that if you were taking a literature course and read this story and were asked to submit a paper on it, that your paper would actually make the claim that this story is about the evils of all contraception excluding NFP?
No! If this were a story in the Iliad, and Zeus killed this guy, you would interpret it in a much different way because anyone without an agenda would. It is only when you insert an anti-contraception agenda into it that you can even APPROACH making a claim that this story is about contraception.
A
ahs
Guest
This is not the Iliad and we are not talking about zeus. This is Sacred Scripture and God, and we are talking about the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles to give them the ability and Authority to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures…and that interpretation is expressed clearly in Church Teaching that has been handed down through the ages and can be seen in the Catechism and various Papal writings.
The “anti-contraception agenda” is God’s, not ours. You don’t have to agree with God if you don’t want to…but it’s a good idea to at least submit ourselves to His Authority that He has given to the Church.
L
LaSainte
Guest
I will address these points one by one.
1.). God also gave this cycle to animals. The fact that in nature, cycles exist and there are fertile times and infertile times has nothing to do with NFP being licit or not. It is just a fact of nature.
2.) just because you are using this natural cycle to avoid pregnancy doesn’t mean you are “working with God”, and the deprivation and self-control involved doesn’t make NFP any more godly or virtuous by default any more than a person is necessarily “working with God” and being virtuous by going on a diet to lose weight based on the natural system of caloric intake vs. expenditure. One has nothing to do with the other. It is just trying to manipulate nature to achieve the desired results.
3.) Condoms and other forms of ABC all have a failure rate and NONE of them eliminate the responsibilities sex comes with. A person with normal fertility having sex always runs the risk of pregnancy. It is false to say that NFP somehow carries with it more responsibility than any other form of birth control and is thus more virtuous.
4.) The fact that NFP can be used to increase the chances of conception if one uses it that way has nothing to do with the virtuousness of using it to avoid pregnancy. This is just something thrown out there by pro-NFPers to legitimize the method. If a drug came out that made it easier to conceive when I wanted to, but greatly reduced the chances of conception when I was seeking to avoid, it would still not be licit according to the Church.
None of these reasons exain why NFP would be legitimate and condoms would not. It’s just more rhetoric.
Again, we come back to “because we said so”, which is fine. The Church can say that and we are expected to follow it (in fact, I do, regardless of my own feelings on the matter). I just wish there were more honesty about it.
L
LaSainte
Guest
That’s the point. If I thought it came from God, there would be no argument. I don’t recall the Apostles ever discussing contraception. I don’t see where it was a matter of divine revelation. The fact is that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and there is NOTHING in their writings about contraception or anything even remotely close. That is why people cling so rabidly to the unlikely story of Onan. Without being a part of divine revelation or directly related to it, this teaching cannot be dogmatized I think?This is not the Iliad and we are not talking about zeus. This is Sacred Scripture and God, and we are talking about the fact that Christ sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles to give them the ability and Authority to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures…and that interpretation is expressed clearly in Church Teaching that has been handed down through the ages and can be seen in the Catechism and various Papal writings.
The “anti-contraception agenda” is God’s, not ours. You don’t have to agree with God if you don’t want to…but it’s a good idea to at least submit ourselves to His Authority that He has given to the Church.
Does anyone have any idea when the earliest writings re: contraception came from within the Church?
F
FCEGM
Guest
No. The scriptural basis has to do with covenant theology which the sin of Onan is an evidence of. I may have recommended in an earlier thread that you read Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, edited by Dr. Janet E. Smith. One of the articles speaks to this point:
The application of the covenant theme to marriage was first developed by the prophet Hosea. Through his words, God revealed the personal nature of His love for His people as the love of a faithful husband for his wife. In Hosea, God used marriage to reveal something about His covenant with His people; and in Ephesians 5, Paul used the covenant of Christ and His Church to reveale something about marriage. With this sort of biblical precedent, it is certainly legitimate to search for the meaning of sexual intercourse in terms of the covenant of marriage. In short, the covenant theology of sex is based upon and is in accord with all of the biblical concepts of sex, love, covenant and marriage. . .
[Regarding Onan, he] was not the only one to vioate the Law of the Levirate in this specific situation, for his father and younger brother also disobeyed it by default. However, Onan engaged in the act called for by the Levirate “covenant” but contradicted it. The sin for which the sacred authors tell us he was punished was not the violation of the Levirate which he would have violated if he had merely refused to have intercourse with Tamar; rather it was his participation in the covenanted act and his contraceptive invalidation of it that was so sinful that he was punished while the other Levirate-violators in his family were not, John Kippley, “A Covenant Theology of Human Sexuality.”
A book by the author of the article might also be helpful to you: Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality, by John F. Kippley.
E
EternalJade
Guest
Thank you for your insights!
I actually do use NFP, but I use the fertility awareness method. I’ve used “complete” and FAM NFP on and off for my whole adult life, and my 4th baby was conceived when I was using complete. Honestly no matter what method we were using we would be overjoyed with a pregnancy even if we weren’t expecting it, as we are very open to life and the idea of not wanting a baby created with your spouse and seeing the precious being as a mistake is pretty sick, frankly. I’m sure everyone here would agree!
I do beg to differ on one of your points though. NFP is MY judgement alone, which my husband trusts, but a barrier method is both of us assuming a risk together. So definitely NFP is my burden alone, which I honestly don’t mind as I would be uncomfortable with him tracking my genitals, heh.
From all of my research all I can gather is the ban on non-abortive contraception is illogical. No biblical back up and even the mind-set explanations behind it are illogical and sometimes downright false, and none of it stands up to reason at any rate. Birth control has been common practice forever but it’s simply not touched on in Jewish/Christian law when all other sexual issues are.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Well, yes, you’d want to think this, but the Church teaches according to its covenant with God, not according to our particular misunderstandings which form our incorrect opinions. You write as if you don’t want the teaching to be from God AND that you don’t want His Church to be infallible. Your approach is no different from the homosexual who wants Scripture to support homosexual activity, or the denier of the Trinity who doesn’t see the word in Scripture, or the denier of the Real Presence who doesn’t see “transubstantiation” in Scripture. Frankly, it is the approach of the Fundamentalist who demands everything be explicit to HIS very fallible understanding of Scripture.
The book I recommended above gets to the heart of the matter:
catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/CONTRACE.TXT
D
DemetriusB
Guest
It’s easier to see the difference between NFP and condoms when you view the sexual act as a gift from God which is sacrosanct. All artificial birth control methods seek to obstruct a natural function of the body; this amounts to a violation of God’s design. Hence, ABC rejects God’s blueprint for how we are to use our bodies while NFP does not.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Please. I have no problem accepting uncomfortable truths laid out by the Church when they have a scriptural and logical basis. I don’t like the Church teachings on Hell or that I have to go to confession, but I accept these things and I live my life accordingly because these concepts are fairly well elucidated in scripture and in tradition with a certain logic to back them up.
As I have stated before, if I believe that a teaching comes from God, that’s the end of it for me, but the teaching on contraception just doesn’t stack up to these other teachings.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hi Mark,
Sorry, No connection, one inhibits reproduction… in the other nothing will ever come forth from.
** Man is made in the image of God,** when a man lies with a man, they become less than men, beasts, diminishing the image and purpose God made them in.
How did rape enter this???
God bless,
John
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello LaSainte,
Faith is belief in action, either you believe in the Church, or not?
doubt is unbelief, the novice doesn’t teach the master.
It is the Church is given the Grace, guidance, knowledge to instruct even in the heavenly places
Scripture: Eph 3:7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power.
To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
Eph 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places
Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
1Ti 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so** that,**
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is** the church** of the living God,** the pillar and bulwark of the truth.**
Word origin dict. **pillar **
early 13c., from O.Fr. piler, from M.L. pilare, from L. pila “pillar, stone barrier.” Figurative sense of "prop or support of an institution or community"
Biblical Dict. **Pillar **definition
used to support a building (Judg. 16:26, 29); as a trophy or memorial (Gen. 28:18; 35:20; Ex. 24:4; 1 Sam. 15:12, A.V., “place,” more correctly “monument,” or **“trophy of victory,” **as in 2 Sam. 18:18); of fire, by which the Divine Presence was manifested (Ex. 13:2). The “plain of the pillar” in Judg. 9:6 ought to be, as in the Revised Version, the “oak of the pillar”, i.e., of the monument or stone set up by Joshua (24:26).
**Bulwark ** ( support, buttress, mainstay)
- a wall of earth or other material built for defense; rampart.
2.any protection against external danger, injury, or annoyance: The new dam was a bulwark against future floods.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jhn 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
First we have to accept, understanding comes later. non acceptance is rebellion, and people are open to suggestions while rebelling.
What society wants today is ‘The Church of the Burger King’ the have it my way crowd, and their are lots of choices with hungry ministers who will serve it up their way.
Are doors are always open for those who want to return, who are truly seeking God, under the guidance of** Christ’s** Church.
I applaud the RCC for it’s stand against world reasoning, it’s probably whyI came back 12 yrs ago.
God bless,
John
- Status