Protestants and Contraception

[Tantum_ergo]

So, Bob, you make the astonishing assertions that not only does it is only ‘Catholic tradition’ that upholds the teaching of contraception as a moral evil, you further state that Catholic tradition ‘can change’.

This is an example of the kind of posting that is so riddled with error that it becomes the equivalent of trying to untangle a skein of yarn while blindfolded and wearing boxing gloves. . . meaning, that while it is certainly possible to untangle things, the one doing the untangled has been unnecessarily hampered by external ‘impositions’ that should not normally be imposed on him/her.

For someone who claims to be Catholic, you don’t appear to uphold this very important and authentic Catholic teaching. As a Protestant convert, I can only wonder (note, I do not accuse or offer my wondering as truth, only YOU know your heart). . . when you received RCIA, were you perhaps misinformed that you need not accept Catholic teachings if your ‘conscience’ said so? IOW, were you, in your conversion, so poorly catechized by those who should have known better that you truly and sincerely do not realize that your position and your refusal to accept this teaching make you (since you do profess to be a Catholic) in grave danger of obstinant, heretical doubt? This doubt from a Protestant would still of course be wrong, but the Protestant would not be necessarily culpable for the wrong belief, or not to a ‘great extent’ since he would not know the truth. But to a Catholic, who does know or should know the truth, obstinant doubt and refusal to accept a teaching carries with it great culpability and danger of damnation for such a refusal. If this was not made clear to you before, please consult with your priest so that it can be made clear to you now.

 

[Xavierlives]

Thank you for the response. This is a bit more like what I have been asking for, although I’m not seeing how stating the positions of various churches shows justification for the reversal.

As for Luke 4:18, my Bible reads that as: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.”
Is that the verse you mean? Because if it is, I honestly don’t see how it relates.

I’m not seeing how the parable of the talents relates either, since its message seems to be to *multiply *what God has given us, not to *cease from multiplying. *(clarification: I’m not referring to *multiplying *here necessarily to mean procreation. One could also multiply love by bringing children to love into the world. I would think Jesus meant for us to multiply all the gifts God bestows upon us.)

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how these verses relate because I’m honestly not seeing it. Thank you!

I don’t find much in Luke 4:18 either, as I tried to say, but I have heard people use it before. As for the Parable of the Talents, I’ve heard the justification that we are only given the amount we can handle (but it is a little self-help on what we can handle).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, I see. Your claim (and you only SAY this about the Lutherans and offer no source to support ) is that since they did not have an ‘official documentation’ on contraception, they could not ‘reverse’ teaching.

So I’m to assume that even though Martin Luther did indeed speak specifically about contraception being evil, you Lutherans never made a ‘determination’ about it?

Well, isn’t that convenient. So, because you claim there is no ‘documentation’ that specifically states in words of one syllable that “we the Lutherans of X declare that contraception is morally evil” (even though as I state there are records by your own FOUNDER that it was. . .IOW, when were his teachings REVOKED?), that Lutherans can basically teach whatever they choose, and that this, which again you offer absolutely no proof for but your unsupported ‘assertion’ somehow revokes the statements?

Fascinating.

What a legalistic (in the worst sense) type of specious argument. . .that something has to be ‘written down’ otherwise it isn’t determined. Are you really claiming that from AD 1520 to AD 1930, that Lutherans had absolutely NO ‘teaching’ on contraception whatsoever? I’d sure like to see proof of THAT statement. Yes, I’ll be that the issue of contraception **never came up in all those years. **

Also, where is the thundering herd of proof offered from the Lutherans etc. I mean, this assertion (as Kay Cee has shown from multiple groups) has been around for a while, and surprisingly, I don’t find any ‘rebuttals’. Don’t you think that since this statement has been around for at least the last 12 years or so (since we find it used, for example, in works dating from 1997) that there should be some ‘rebuttals’ from the Lutherans?

I appeal to my Protestant brothers and sisters. So, tell me. . .do you believe that for example in YOUR faith tradition (if it existed prior to 1930), that it looked on the pertinent Scripture and tradition regarding contraception (and YES, there IS Scripture and it was ACCEPTED prior to the current crop of revisionists who are attempting to make sin ‘un-sin’ ) as showing that contraception was morally wrong? Can you show me examples where your faith tradition prior to AD 1930 ever viewed (and give examples) of them stating that contraception was morally neutral or positive? And show that again prior to AD 1930 that they could give contraception a ‘pass’ because they felt it WASN’T in Scripture and thus was 'not an issue?"

 

[Kay_Cee]

I don’t find much in Luke 4:18 either, as I tried to say, but I have heard people use it before. As for the Parable of the Talents, I’ve heard the justification that we are only given the amount we can handle (but it is a little self-help on what we can handle).

Well, if that’s the case, and God gives us fertility, shouldn’t it be something we can handle? So I’m not seeing that verse as a reason for a change in teaching either.

 

[manualman]

AmericanJosiah,You initially made a good point in that the OP worded the thread premise poorly. But you’ve since cleary moved to dodging the issue like a cheap defense attorney. The fact is that contraception has been a temptation for human beings for as long as there have BEEN sinful human beings. It’s obvious. Puritan or not, theologians have discussed it. The fact that you are dodging the issue with legal manuevers does nothing to mask the fact that you are simply unable to find any pre-1900 sources or reputable protestants teaching the moral acceptability of contraception. You have a technical point that there may not have been anything OFFICIAL stating it to be sinful. But protestantism kinda WORKS that way, doesn’t it? You affirm the bible alone, a few creed and a LOT of other stuff comes along for the ride without having anything OFFICIAL printed about it. Let’s be honest, its pretty notable that nobody important in the history of protestantism is on record endorsing contraception before 1900, yes?Now the question is - why is that? Options:1. Previous protestant theologians and teachers were all still polluted by a legacy of catholicism.2. Previous protestant theologians were still positively influenced by the legacy of their catholic heritage (admitted it or not).I think the apocryphal story about Pope John Paul I’s intentions might rather backfire on the guy who brought it up. Infallibility is a negative protection. It doesn’t guarantee a pope will properly understand all issues, it just prevents him from formally teaching error. You realize JPI died rather abruptly shortly after becoming pope, right? Before he “had the chance” to teach on the matter… God DOES take his promises seriously and ‘early retirement’ isn’t exactly the worst thing God could do to a well intentioned, but wrong minded pope… (key word being GOD, not man)

 

[fish90]

AmericanJosiah, what about your position about talking about that there has been a dramatic shift in Protestant morality including Lutheranism regarding contraception?

Will this please the OP (legal maneuvers would end, lol)?

 

[mark_a]

As usual, I’m late to the party, but here goes.

1. What is the justification (if any) for this 180 degree reversal of teaching?

Ignorance of tradition and an ultimate lack of authority. Period.

1. If there is such justification, where can I find support for this in the Bible?

You can find this biblical support implicit in the fund-a-gelicals’ wrongly interpreted “traditions of men” that is condemned by the gospel and the fingerpointing attitude they harbor that says “if it ain’t Catholic, it’s ok”.

Want documentation? Here ya go:
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Y’all have a nice day.

 

[mark_a]

See, I know FOR A FACT that my Protestant denomination has NEVER had an official position on this.

Then you definitely are not WELS, who even take a dim view of NFP.

Here ya go:

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=0&event=4415&date=2006-12-29

 

[Caramel]

The premise is that prior to 1930, ALL and EVERY denomination had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as immoral, and that after 1930, they “REVERSED” those official positions.

Here’s the reality. NOT ONE CASE of that has been documented. Not one. The premise is baseless.

I don’t know the status of this 1910 statement, or if it was a denominational statement at all. Denominations issue HUNDREDS of reports, papers, etc. - very, very, very few of them are official positions of the denomination. IF the 1910 statement IS an official position of one of the provinces of The Anglican Communion, then - you MIGHT have a single example of a reversal - I don’t know. But a single case is not documentation of universality.

See, I know FOR A FACT that my Protestant denomination has NEVER had an official position on this. Ever. Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to “reverse” such even if it did - at some future point - take an official position. IF the opening poster had framed this as “ONE province of ONE denomination reversed an earlier position” - and then documented that - I would never have posted in this thread. But that’s not the premise.

What it seems the opening poster is now admitting is that he/she has simply copy/pasted a claim found on the net - and presents it as true. In spite of the confession that he/she has no evidence whatsoever of it being true (and doesn’t seem to care if it is). Funny, IMHO, how Catholics are uncomfortable with some Protestant copy/pasting something said on the net - and then passing it off as an indisputable fact (when in reality, its’ not!) and then do actually as they condemn. Untruths have a way of being perpetuated - even by honest and sincere and good people and organizations - because NO ONE BOTHERS to check it out (or even think about it!!!) THIS one, found all over the net, is absurd just on the face of it. VERY FEW denominations make official positions on moral issues AT ALL, and very few have on this issue. Mine is not unusual. The premise that the opening posted made (yes - posted a lot by Catholics around the net) is simply and entirely baseless. Too bad it keeps getting perpetuated - especially by people who complain about people and organizations perpetuating inaccuracies about Catholicism without checking them out or even thinking about them. IMHO.

… then the premise is wrong, baseless, moot. And cannot be discussed.

Even IF it can be shown that ONE Province of ONE denomination reversed its official stance (and I haven’t seen even that documentated), that’s not EVERY Protestant denomination, is it?

And one could quote 50,000,000 individuals but that doesn’t mean anything vis-a-vis official positions of any denomination. Friend, I could quote some of my Catholic friends with positions the Church would STRONGLY disagree with, but it is appropriate for me to state (and build an entire premise around) that since a Catholic has this opinion, ERGO, that’s the official position of The Catholic Church? Follow me?

Moot. It is NEVER the responsibility of others to prove a position as false, it is the respoinsibility of the one making the statement to support it as true. If I posted, “There are 6 million purple people living on the Moon of Endor” that’s NOT a dogmatic fact unless you can prove it false (try doing that!!! LOL). You have things reversed.

But I can do it in this case. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (which DID exist prior to 1930) has NEVER had an official position on this matter. NEVER has. STILL doesn’t. Thus, the premise of this thread is wrong. Not every denomination had an official position condemning all forms of contraception as immoral 1930 and then reversed it since then. In fact, I personally don’t know of ANY Protestant denomination that had an official position on this prior to 1930; if the opening poster can document that one province of The Anglican Church did - that would be ONE. Far from EVERY.
.

I have been following this thread with great interest. And what I am seeing here is that the OP and others have provided links which you indicate mean absolutely nothing!! What do you want the OP to do - produce a tome of evidence that you personally find acceptable as proof? In the OP it is stated “My understanding is…” Therefore in your responses to the OP you must accept this as part of her premise. She doesn’t have to provide any more proof than she already has. She has given her premise. She may be wrong but you don’t seem to be able to find any way to show that she is wrong (in your opinion) except to constantly go back to the same old argument.

You are wrong!! Plainly and simply and logically, you are wrong!! She has backed up her premise with proof but you either cannot or will not see it. Do you expect God to come down from the heavens and give you the proof personally??

I mean, c’mon now, this is getting ridiculous. You are now using this thread to push your own agenda with your jabs at the Catholic Church. You are obviously angry and it is starting to show.

It’s kinda funny how you spew out all this stuff about the OP and the OP’s stated faith and then at the end you put in “IMHO.” Do you see how those four little letters change everything? Why did you put that in? Was it because you realized that you were being illogical and threw that in at the end? The OP has also stated an opinion which is part of her premise just as “IMHO” is part of your argument. You can’t accept it in one case (your diatribe) and not accept it in another (the OP’s premise).

If you are unhappy about the OP’s stated position, why don’t you start your own thread about what you believe to be misunderstandings about views on contraception in Protestant churches?? Then you can state your own premise and show your own proof and then maybe you will be happy.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

My understanding is that before 1930, every Christian denomination, without exception, condemned contraception as immoral. Luther called it “far more atrocious than incest and adultery.” Calvin called it “monstrous.”

Here is a link to those and other quotes made by Protestants: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp

However, today many Protestant denominations allow contraception.

My question is twofold:

1. What is the justification (if any) for this 180 degree reversal of teaching?
2. If there is such justification, where can I find support for this in the Bible?

Please note what this thread is **not **about:

It is not about any doctrine other than contraception.

It is not about the Catholic Church’s stand on contraception and whether or not Catholics follow it. I’m interested only in what the official teaching is here, not whether members of any Christian faith, Catholic or Protestant, follow those teachings.

It is not about whether or not contraception is a good thing. It is about whether or not justification can be found for a reversal of teaching about contraception.

Please restrict your discussion to answering my two questions. Anything else will be considered off topic, and I may ask the moderators to remove such posts as per the forum rules. Let’s have a nice, civil discussion. I’ve often wondered about these questions, so I’d like to see plenty of response.

A potential justification for an allowance of contraception may stem from these verses:

Matthew 12:
30: He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Luke 12:
8: Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Perhaps an/the interpretation is that neither the prevention of conception, nor the termination of developing life, fall into the category of unforgivable sin; and the main focus of the church(es) may be to praise the honoring of the Son rather than to condemn [forgivable] sin.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah,You initially made a good point in that the OP worded the thread premise poorly.

Actually, I think the premise is baseless. It’s found all over the net (the opening poster referenced several websites perpetuating this), but it’s simply baseless. As, sadly, it yet to be admitted.

It’s SAD, in my humble opinion. People find something on the net, assuming everything on the net is obviously a dogmatic fact, then copy and paste it as dogmatic fact. Never bothering to check it out (or even think about it - because a lot of time, it’s OBVIOUSLY not true). It gets put on important websites - simply rendering them incredible and undermining their work. Catholics decry when Protestants find something baseless and perpetuate it without examination or thought or concern for its truthfulness AS THEY SHOULD. But it works both ways, don’t you agree?

Let’s be honest, its pretty notable that nobody important in the history of protestantism is on record endorsing contraception before 1900, yes?Now the question is - why is that? Options:1. Previous protestant theologians and teachers were all still polluted by a legacy of catholicism.2. Previous protestant theologians were still positively influenced by the legacy of their catholic heritage (admitted it or not).I think the apocryphal story about Pope John Paul I’s intentions might rather backfire on the guy who brought it up. Infallibility is a negative protection. It doesn’t guarantee a pope will properly understand all issues, it just prevents him from formally teaching error. You realize JPI died rather abruptly shortly after becoming pope, right? Before he “had the chance” to teach on the matter… God DOES take his promises seriously and ‘early retirement’ isn’t exactly the worst thing God could do to a well intentioned, but wrong minded pope… (key word being GOD, not man)

It is true that most Protestants have opinions. I regard this as true prior to 1930, too. Prior to 1930, I think you’d find very few who stated, dogmatically, that there are planets outside of our own solar system - many would have regarded it as a POSSIBILITY, but no dogmatic statements. Now, I suspect most would say that there are - hundreds of them, at least. But this actually has nothing to do with official statements of any Protestant denomination - none of which (to my knowledge) have any official statements in this regard, any official denominational position.

I think it’s possible that prior to 1930, most Protestants were opposed to contraceptive devices. I don’t know that, I have no data on that, I wasn’t alive then, I simply have no objective, confirmable data on what percentage of Protestants were or were not opposed to all forms of contraception as immoral in 1930 (or any year before that). Sorry. But I take the quotes here as correct, so it does seem there were at least 6. Maybe there were lots more. Maybe even most were! I simply don’t have any data on that. Just a few isolated snippets from individuals. Well, friend, I know FAR MORE than 6 Catholics that are NOT opposed to contraception and do NOT regard it as “immormal.” Does THAT indicate that The Catholic Church REVERSED it’s position - simply because some Catholics hold a position different than the CC held before 1930? I think not. Friend, I SUSPECT (but cannot prove) that among the 2.1 billion Christians in the world, there is not (and maybe never has been) an absolute, 100% consensus on this matter. I don’t know. I’m not sure it’s possible to know. There CERTAINLY is not now - including among Catholics. But…

Then we need to make up our mind: Are we going to discuss how INDIVIDUALS (including Catholic individuals) regard this issue - and whether that underwent some changes during the 20th Century? OR are we doing to discuss premise of THIS thread: that every single denomination in history was officially condemning of all forms of contraception as immoral before 1930 and then officially “reversed” and "did a 180 degree change) and officially took the opposite position? They are two different issues. (unless you are willing to have me quote a Catholic known to me who thinks contraception is okay - and then from that declare that THEREFORE The Catholic Church now regards it as okay - but I doubt you are).

As for your options, you didn’t give a third option: It may be regarded that Scripture is not sufficient clear on the issue to make a dogmatic declaration. That would NOT prevent the denomination (or clergy thereof) from giving very strong counsel (as is the case in my denomination - where the SAME statement about having no official position GOES ON to strongly counsel AGAINST the practice). That’s an option for some reason you didn’t consider, Scripture simply isn’t viewed as dogmatic on the issue. I think your two options have nothing whatsoever to do with it - except, perhaps, for Catholics.

Again, if we want to close this thread and start a new one: “Why have some Christians - including Catholics - changed their view about contraception?” That would be an interesting question, but obviously very different than this thread.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

.

 

[mark_a]

It is true that most Protestants have opinions. I regard this as true prior to 1930, too. Prior to 1930, I think you’d find very few who stated, dogmatically, that there are planets outside of our own solar system - many would have regarded it as a POSSIBILITY, but no dogmatic statements. osition.

Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges.

Knowledge of planets outside our solar system has nothing to do with milking ducks.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Apples and oranges.

Exactly, just as opinions of individuals have to do with official positions of denominations.

Personal opinions do not equal official positions of denominations.

The opening poster’s premise (sadly found in many places on the net) is simply baseless and unfounded. It COULD be - perhaps - that ONE province of ONE denomination changed it’s previous position on this matter (such is - as yet - not substantiated) but that hardly upholds the premise of this thread.

Now, if the good people here want to CHANGE the premise from “every denomination” to “some people” - then that’s a whole other issue - and it would included Catholics, too. I could quote you a Catholic who thinks contraception is not immoral for every Protestant you can quote who says it is not - if you want to talk about individual opinions rather than denominational positions.

.

 

[mark_a]

I could quote you a Catholic who thinks contraception is not immoral for every Protestant you can quote who says it is not.

Probably more. That, however, does not jibe with Catholic Church teaching.

But it does mesh well with the Protestants’ non-teaching about contraception, and while we’re at it, the Protestant non-teaching about self-gratifying auto-erotic activity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, thanks. While it is possible that for the legalistically and terminally argumentative person to insist that perhaps not every single SOLITARY Protestant denomination (after all, not even Protestants seem to be aware of exactly how many different ‘denoms’ there even are) had incorporated a formal, legal coda whereby they listed out every single solitary ‘moral evil’ and did not (according to the ‘testimony’ though no actual proof has yet been supplied) outright state thereby “contraception is a moral evil”. . .

What that actually means is that you still have virtually no proof whatsoever to state that anywhere near a minority, let alone a majority, of Protestants prior to 1930 ever taught or understood anything OTHER than that contraception is a moral evil.

As another poster notes, apples and oranges. Show us, please, all those ‘denominations’ that NEVER actively spoke on contraception. Explain, as I have asked over and over, how it is that the founders of all these groups DID speak of contraception as a moral evil, yet somehow your ‘groups’ ‘never thought on the topic?’ When did the teachings of your leaders get formally revoked, eh?

Otherwise, I’m sure you’d be able to haul in all sorts of documents where you could show that in 1900 the issue of contraception was never discussed (and therefore never existed) in groups, A, B, C, etc.

Why aren’t you doing so? The Lambeth conference documents have been around a long time and it is quite clear that the conference of 1910 taught the contraception was morally wrong, whereas the conference of 1930 reversed the position.

So, we have a very large group (for the time) in the U.S. of Protestants ‘reversing’ teaching. And we thereafter have more and more Protestants afterward coming out and starting to teach first that contraception may be ‘permissable’ (and what does that mean, boys and girls? Permissable means that gee, whatever is being discussed is by DEFINITION NOT PERMISSABLE EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!!!) and then going even further.

Where were these comparable teachings regarding the ‘permissability’ of contraception prior to 1930?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Gosh, Josiah, I wasn’t aware that our Christian teachings were ‘majority rule’, you know? I thought that teachings were truth whether or not people ‘agreed’ with them. So what if you ‘could’ find Catholics who dispute the teachings on contraception (or indeed, any teaching?) That means only that they dispute the teachings. … it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the inherent truth of the teachings themselves.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Probably more. That, however, does not jibe with Catholic Church teaching.

Apples and oranges…

You seem to insist on focusing on what an INDIVIDUAL Protestant may or may not opinion, but then only on what the official position is of The Catholic Church. Make up your mind: Are we going to talk about individual personal opinions or official denomination positions?

If you want to talk about the views of INDIVIDUALS - and whether such individually or collective may have undergone some change during the 20th century - cool. Of course, we’d need to include the 1.1 billion Catholics in on that, too. Discussing that requires a new thread.

If you want to talk about the official positions of church bodies - as is the issue of this thread, then we need to look at official statements: for example of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod or The Catholic Church (REGARDLESS of individual feelings of individuals in those). But, if you desire to do THAT, you are going to find yourself pretty limited. My denomination, for example, has NO official position on this. Never has. Still doesn’t.

But make up your mind what you want to discuss: individual feelings/opinions or official declarations.

.

 

[mark_a]

Apples and oranges…

You seem to insist on focusing on what an INDIVIDUAL Protestant may or may not opinion, but then only on what the official position is of The Catholic Church. Make up your mind: Are we going to talk about individual personal opinions or official denomination positions?

If you want to talk about the views of INDIVIDUALS - and whether such individually or collective may have undergone some change during the 20th century - cool. Of course, we’d need to include the 1.1 billion Catholics in on that, too. Discussing that requires a new thread.

If you want to talk about the official positions of church bodies - as is the issue of this thread, then we need to look at official statements: for example of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod or The Catholic Church (REGARDLESS of individual feelings of individuals in those). But, if you desire to do THAT, you are going to find yourself pretty limited. My denomination, for example, has NO official position on this. Never has. Still doesn’t.

But make up your mind what you want to discuss: individual feelings/opinions or official declarations.

I’d rather stick with discussing official Church teaching then.

In 1931, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the old Federal Council of Churches issued a statement defending family limitation and arguing for the repeal of laws prohibiting contraceptive education and sales. Some member churches—notably the Southern Methodists and the Northern Baptists—protested the action, and the Southern Presbyterians even withdrew their membership from the Federal Council for a decade, but they were the minority and even their protests did not last.

The above was snipped from:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Until 1930, no Protestant denomination taught that contraception was not intrinsically evil.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, thanks.

The premise is that EVERY DENOMINATION prior to 1930 officially condemned all forms of contraception as “immoral” So far, this has not been documented for even ONE denomination - much less for EVERY one of them.

It seems (but is yet to be documented) that one province of one denomination held this official position before 1930 and then reversed it in 1931. I haven’t seen any documentation for this, but so it is claimed. One does not mean every. Unless it is your position that The Anglican Church is the only true church so that no other is relevant to this discussion.

What that actually means is that you still have virtually no proof whatsoever to state tht anywhere near a minority, let alone a majority, of Protestants prior to 1930 ever taught or understood anything OTHER than that contraception is a moral evil.

1. That’s moot to this thread. This thread isn’t about the opinions of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world about this topic, or even all those who have ever lived. It’s about every denomination.
2. You’re correct. NOTHING here has been presented - affirming or otherwise - of what every individual thought on this topic before 1930 or after 1930. So far, there’s no data. We have been given the opinions of 6 persons. I could share the opinions of several more - Protestant, Catholic and otherwise. But all that is entirely moot to the issue of this thread.

Show us, please, all those ‘denominations’ that NEVER actively spoke on contraception.

It’s not my premise that ALL of them had official declarations condemning all forms of contraception as immoral prior to 1930 and then reversed that since then. I have nothing to prove or substantiate, all I noted is that that premise has not been substantiated. At all. For even ONE, much less for EVERY.

What I DO know is that MY denomination has NEVER had an official position on this. Never has. Still doesn’t. Therefore, that known fact in and of itself makes the premise of this thread incorrect. But, so far, it has not been documented that ANY denomination held this official position prior to 1930. ONLY that 6 individuals did. Apples and oranges. I could find you more than 6 individuals in church history who beleived the world is flat, that hardly means that EVERY denomination has had an official position declaring that the earth is flat. Apples and oranges.

If you want to talk about the opinions of individuals - Catholic and Protestant - okay. I know LOTS of Catholics who believe contraception is NOT immoral (as well as lots of Protestants with that view, and lots who think it IS immoral). But that’s not the topic of this thread. This thread is about every denomination and the official positions thereof.

Explain, as I have asked over and over, how it is that the founders of all these groups DID speak of contraception as a moral evil, yet somehow your ‘groups’ ‘never thought on the topic?’

The “founders” of these groups can opinion anything they want about anything they want. It doesn’t make it an official position of ANY denomination. Any more than if the Pope says he likes thin crust pizza, that makes it Dogma in The Catholic Church that we should eat only thin crust pizza (however passionately he may hold to that opinion). Individual opinions is not the same as official denominational positions. You, as a Catholic, should know that. NO MATTER WHAT POSTION that individual has.

Make up your mind: Do you want to start a new thread on the positions of individuals - Catholic and Protestant - regarding this topic, and whatever data you may have about any changes in the overal perspective? OR do you want to discuss the premise here, that EVERY denomination’s official position before 1930 was that all forms of contraception are “immoral” but that they “reversed” this, “did a 180” and now officially embrace all forms as okay? If you want to discuss the premise here, we need to document it as true. So far, it’s not been documented for even ONE denomination - much less for EVERY.

Where were these comparable teachings regarding the ‘permissability’ of contraception prior to 1930?

If you find a denomination that AFTER 1930 officially affirms all forms of contraception, that doesn’t affirm that prior to 1930, EVERY denomination officially condemned all forms as immoral but after 1930, “reversed” and “did a 180” to support it. What you would have is ONE denomination TAKING a stand (and I’d wonder - is it a denominational stand?). Apples and oranges.

.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You really do seem to have an interest in taking the Lambeth conference of 1930 and the decision (which was indeed a reversal of previous doctrinal teaching on contraception) and making it into ‘just’ one group’s opinion.

Why is that?

You still have not shown us in any way that other Christian groups taught that contraception was not a moral evil.

Why is that?

You should be able to do that with ease. Where (prior to 1930) are the protestant groups who taught that contraception was not a moral evil? And you know, by ‘taught’ we do not artificially attempt (as you have) to limit this to a ‘written’ statement. Contraception has been known and sadly practiced for many, many generations prior to ours. . .now, if Protestant groups had absolutely ‘no’ teaching on contraception, why is it that in those cases (documented examples that go way back, records of the Puritans, records of individual churches which operated under the ‘umbrella’ of the ‘leadership’ etc., we constantly find examples where pastors would write, or preach (oral teaching is still teaching you know) that contraception was wrong, and we don’t find (or if we find it, we find it REPUDIATED by the majority or leaders) examples of those in authority in Protestant churches teaching that contraception is permissable?

Fact is, whether you’re in Puritan New England, 1830s "Dickens’ London, 1880s’ Paris, 1890s’ Vienna, or 1920s’ ‘down South U.S.A.’, when you hear from the various preachers of both Protestant and Catholic churches speaking on the topic of contraception, they refer to it as morally wrong. It is only in the 1920s that the ‘furor’ begins with the emphasis skewed and the attempts to paint the issue as ‘woman’s rights’ and the politicization begin, and it is the Lambeth Conferences’ kowtowing to that ‘revisionism’ of the subject that causes and has caused a host (but not ALL) of Christians to ‘change their minds’ about contraception.