Protestants and Contraception

[Kay_Cee]

Here is another source:

"as late as 1908 the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church stated that birth control ‘cannot be spoken of without repugnance,’ and denounced it as ‘demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.’
But the Anglicans were the **first **church to issue a statement in favour of contraception, which they did at the Lambeth Conference in 1930 by a majority of 193 to 67. A group of American Protestants followed in 1931.

Source: bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_2.shtml

I have already listed this source but will list it again:

“The first mistake was made in the year 1930. Before then, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants stood together in unified condemnation of any attempt to sterilize the marital act with the use of contraceptives. It was first the Anglican Church that broke with more than 1900 years of uninterrupted Christian teaching. In time, other churches and denominations followed.” (Emphasis mine)

Source:
google.com/search?q=protestants+contraception+history&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=A1wJS5DbC4_kswPOs6HBCQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CDsQ5wIwCg

 

[Kay_Cee]

More:

“Contraception was condemned by Christianity as a barrier to God’s procreative purpose of marriage until the start of the 20th century.”

Source: contraception.about.com/od/additionalresources/ss/religion_2.htm

“Until the 1930’s, every Christian denomination condemned contraception. It was in the 1930’s that the Anglican church first approved of contraception in some cases. Since then, every Christian church has approved of contraception within the context of marriage with the exception of the Catholic Church.”

Source: deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2004/01/contraception_a.html

“Until 1930, contraception faced disapproval from Catholics and Protestants alike. Then, the Anglican community allowed it, and steadily other Protestant churches followed suit.”

Source: everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1825065

In research for an ethics course, she found that, until 1930, Christian churches-without exception-condemned contraception in the strongest terms. The Protestant reformers, whom we revered, went so far as to call it “murder.” Kimberly also found out that the anticontraception laws-which were on the books in many states until the 1960s-were largely the work of evangelical Protestant legislators.

Source: beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2004/08/A-Lie-In-The-Language-Of-Love.aspx

“Christian churches, however, remained steadfast in their opposition to contraception … for a while. The first break from tradition came in 1930, when the bishops of the Church of England, who as a body had affirmed the traditional view of marriage and upheld the ban on contraception as recently as 1920, voted at the Lambeth Conference, the governing body of Anglicanism, that contraception was morally acceptable. Prompted, the Federal Council of Churches, an organization of Protestant churches in the United States, issued a similar statement.”

Source: lifeissues.net/writers/hays/hays_01puzzleofnfp1.html

“The issue of contraception raises legitimate controversy among Christians. At one time all Christians were unanimous in opposing it. However, advancing technology has made artificial contraception so safe and convenient that opposition has diminished. While Roman Catholic teaching remains in opposition to it, Protestant leadership has tended to approve artificial contraception with little public expression of reservation.” (Emphasis mine)

Source: rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45962

 

[1ke]

David Yallop.

Oh yes, the man with the tinfoil hat on as he writes his conspiracy theory books. A reliable source if ever there was one. NOT.

This man has been discredited regarding his allegations towards John Paul I, both from interviews with Vatican officials and bishops AND by his own writings and speeches prior to his becoming Pope. He supported and upheld Pope Paul VI’s encyclical. There is nothing but hearsay from Yallop’s “sources” (i.e. figments of his imagination) saying otherwise.

I think this speaks volumes about your position on the Church, Lutheranteach, and I think that the Catholic school is crazy for employing you to teach religion. It is a breach of trust. Those teaching religion in Catholic schools are to have Catholic theology credentials. Not Lutheran credentials.

 

[Kay_Cee]

David Yallop.

Oh yes, the man with the tinfoil hat on as he writes his conspiracy theory books. A reliable source if ever there was one. NOT.

This man has been discredited regarding his allegations towards John Paul I, both from interviews with Vatican officials and bishops AND by his own writings and speeches prior to his becoming Pope. He supported and upheld Pope Paul VI’s encyclical. There is nothing but hearsay from Yallop’s “sources” (i.e. figments of his imagination) saying otherwise.

I think this speaks volumes about your position on the Church, Lutheranteach, and I think that the Catholic school is crazy for employing you to teach religion. It is a breach of trust. Those teaching religion in Catholic schools are to have Catholic theology credentials. Not Lutheran credentials.

Would you, Lutherteach, and Caramel please take this discussion to another thread? It is off topic here.

 

[livi]

I don’t understand why so many denominations have come to support it, but you certainly won’t find support for contraception in the Bible.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I said in my OP it was a reversal of ***teaching. ***I have already given documentation. You just refuse to accept it.

But here is more:

“We have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900s. Not one! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiatically opposed to it, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation.” Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control

Charles D. Provan is not any denomination known to me.

Are you documenting that the Charles D. Provan Denomination officially “taught” that all forms of contraception were immoral prior to 1930 but after that made a “180 degree reversal” in that? How so?

If you take that statement and compare “many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation” and compare that to the allowance of contraception today, why you can’t see a difference is beyond me.

This is a quote from what denomination?

Within this thread, we already have Luther’s statement condeming contraception, and ELCA’s very different positon (in post 6). Luther taught one thing. ELCA today teaches another. I’ve already been told by a poster that Luther was wrong. What am I to call that but a reversal of his teaching?

1. Luther was a person, not a denomination.
2. Where did Luther make a “180 degree reversal” of his position after 1930?
3. ELCA is a denomination, but it didn’t exist in 1930. It came into being in 1988. So, how is it that it “reversed” it’s position that it had before 1930 with one it took after that? Where is this reversal that is the premise of this thread? And how is the ELCA “every” denomination. You said “EVERY” denomination was condemning of all forms of contraceptives prior to 1930. You can’t use ELCA at all. It didn’t exist before 1930, it could not have had a position before it existed.

Besides, if you think the conversaton cannot continue, why you continue to converse is also beyond me.

I’m TRYING to find the substantiation for your premise - so that it CAN be discussed.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

More:

“Contraception was condemned by Christianity as a barrier to God’s procreative purpose of marriage until the start of the 20th century.”

Source: contraception.about.com/od/additionalresources/ss/religion_2.htm

“Until the 1930’s, every Christian denomination condemned contraception. It was in the 1930’s that the Anglican church first approved of contraception in some cases. Since then, every Christian church has approved of contraception within the context of marriage with the exception of the Catholic Church.”

Source: deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2004/01/contraception_a.html

“Until 1930, contraception faced disapproval from Catholics and Protestants alike. Then, the Anglican community allowed it, and steadily other Protestant churches followed suit.”

Source: everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1825065

In research for an ethics course, she found that, until 1930, Christian churches-without exception-condemned contraception in the strongest terms. The Protestant reformers, whom we revered, went so far as to call it “murder.” Kimberly also found out that the anticontraception laws-which were on the books in many states until the 1960s-were largely the work of evangelical Protestant legislators.

Source: beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2004/08/A-Lie-In-The-Language-Of-Love.aspx

“Christian churches, however, remained steadfast in their opposition to contraception … for a while. The first break from tradition came in 1930, when the bishops of the Church of England, who as a body had affirmed the traditional view of marriage and upheld the ban on contraception as recently as 1920, voted at the Lambeth Conference, the governing body of Anglicanism, that contraception was morally acceptable. Prompted, the Federal Council of Churches, an organization of Protestant churches in the United States, issued a similar statement.”

Source: lifeissues.net/writers/hays/hays_01puzzleofnfp1.html

“The issue of contraception raises legitimate controversy among Christians. At one time all Christians were unanimous in opposing it. However, advancing technology has made artificial contraception so safe and convenient that opposition has diminished. While Roman Catholic teaching remains in opposition to it, Protestant leadership has tended to approve artificial contraception with little public expression of reservation.” (Emphasis mine)

Source: rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45962

These are all repeating your premise. And offering NOTHING to support it as true.

.

 

[Kay_Cee]

These are all repeating your premise. And offering NOTHING to support it as true.

.

My premise is based upon these, not the other way around. I already said I had based it upon what I had read.

If you want proof from these websites, take it up with them. As you point out, they are saying the same thing I said, so I am merely repeating them. If you will check my OP, I opened with "My understanding is that . . . " and from there I based the questions upon what I had read. I have provided plenty of reason to come to such an understanding.

If you want to refute these websites, please feel free to open a new thread about it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, AmericanJosiah, do us a favor, please?

Since you are rejecting the contention that prior to 1930, both Catholics and Protestants, on the whole, if they had any sort of statement or position on birth control/contraception, were clearly of the opinion that it was wrong. . .and that the Lambeth Conference of 1930 marks the first time that a major Christian denomination actually came out and stated that contraception would be morally permissible for certain reasons. . .and that as the 20th century passed, more and more Protestant Churches, if they did speak regarding contraception, became more inclined to say that it either could not be ‘found in the Bible’ or that it was something that was ‘up to the individual’ or indeed that it could be morally good. . .

**Would you mind providing us with the proof that supports your rejection? It ought to be easy to find. You should be able to point out various denominations’ positions on birth control (prior to 1930) which clearly state that it is morally permissible.
**
**And you ought to be able to tell us which groups spoke about it ‘before’ 1930.
**
Right now, you don’t seem inclined even to accept the Lambeth Conferences own words (1910’s documentation which portrayed contraception/birth control as moral evil) as opposed to the 1930 words (birth control/contraception may be permitted in certain specific circumstances ) to the 1960s and beyond (where it has gone from being permitted in certain grave circumstances to being something that is for the individual to decide).

What will you accept? We know that there are at least 5000 different ‘Protestant’ groups, ranging from Assembly of God to Presbyterian, non-denomination groups of ‘home churches’ to Lutherans, high church Anglicans, AME Zion, etc. etc., Quakers, even a couple of Shakers, Amish, Menonnite, LDS and Mormons. . . I suppose that not every single solitary one of these groups (some of whom did not exist prior to 1930) did not have a written ‘statement’ regarding contraception (or indeed, regarding slave-holding prior to say 1850), or regarding divorce, or regarding theft, or fornication, or usury, etc. etc. But even if every single member of “Church of the Whoziwhatsis” never spoke a word about ‘contraception’, they still either viewed it as ‘wrong’ or viewed it as ‘right’. (just as we seldom if ever hear from any religious denomination that “arson is a moral wrong”, we don’t thereby determine that, since the Baptists or the Lutherans don’t come out and say specifically ‘arson is a moral wrong’ that means that they don’t believe it IS wrong!) Considering the fact that Margaret Sanger’s views in the 1920s were 'front page news" any Christian group which agreed with the notion that there was nothing ‘wrong’ with contraception would have supported Ms. Sanger, would have noted that they felt the same, etc. Do you see that evidence? I don’t think so. . . .

So how about 'putting your money where your mouth is? If KayCee’s premise is not true, you should be able to prove it’s false. And I don’t see in any way, shape or form that you have come anywhere close to doing so.

 

[Caramel]

Would you, Lutherteach, and Caramel please take this discussion to another thread? It is off topic here.

My apologies to you and all who are posting in this thread. I agree that it is always a good idea to stick to the topic that the OP presents and I have been taking it off-topic. Why don’t one of us start a thread about Lutheran teaching? I can’t do it right now because I am the OP of two other threads already and active in a thread on abortion. I just don’t have the time.

Maybe someone else could start a thread??

Again, I apologize, Kay Cee.

 

[Kay_Cee]

My apologies to you and all who are posting in this thread. I agree that it is always a good idea to stick to the topic that the OP presents and I have been taking it off-topic. Why don’t one of us start a thread about Lutheran teaching? I can’t do it right now because I am the OP of two other threads already and active in a thread on abortion. I just don’t have the time.

Maybe someone else could start a thread??

Again, I apologize, Kay Cee.

Apology accepted. :hug1:

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m not sure that quoting Luther is all that helpful, since some communions (most notably the Anglican Communion) did not derive from Luther or the Reformation as it took place in Saxony. Having said that, Methodism’s founder (and Anglican priest) John Wesley spoke about birth control from a Thomistic/Natural Law position. However, there was never any OFFICIAL doctrinal stance or teaching on the matter.

I am sure that science and an increased awareness of world situations were as much a part of an acceptance of birth control in view of some areas of the world where population exceeded local resources, pitting “be fruitful and multiply” against “being good stewards” of that which God entrusts us. Of course, as in most things, the whole “story” often lags behind information, as the U.S. is going to find itself in a few years when our senior-aged population will far outweigh the younger population who will struggle to provide basic services. I didn’t help matters, as my wife and I only had one child.

As far as Protestants and teaching where contraception is concerned - it was simply not talked about except by a very, very, very few theologians and church leaders, as the Victorian and Puritan ethos was fully in effect in matters of sexuality. That silence was probably a mistake.

Where do we go from here? Arguing Natural Law from Aquinas is a good argument… until you realize that it was Aquinas who also said in his Summa that while from human nature’s standpoint a woman is made perfect in her bearing of children, from an individual standpoint a woman was a “misbegotten male.”:

Summa Theologica (Ia) q.92, a.1 Objection 1: “It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that “the female is a misbegotten male.” But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.”

(Ia) q.92, a.1, Reply to Objection 1: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”

I imagine Aquinas wishes he could take that one back. To his defense, Genetics 301 wasn’t offered when he went to school.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

There’s link on Wikipedia which gives a brief rundown on Christian views on contraception.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

As a former Protestant myself, I favour access to contraception for married couples. Obviously it will be abused morally, as sex is such a strong drive, but then we abuse or misuse motor vehicles, knives, animals, guns, possessions, and just about anything else in our ambit.

Four million people die each year from smoking related disorders, and who knows how many from alcohol abuse? But the Church doesn’t ban either.

Also we live in a world of 6 billion people, estimated to be 7 billion by 2012, and 9 billion by 2040. That’s a fifty percent increase in 31 years. That translates to a need for fresh water, more food, more infrastructure, more energy production and so on, in a world which is daily demonstrating more intense competition for the resources that are available… That’s bit different to the primeval situation of two people and an undamaged world.

The very maximum population the earth could support is estimated to be about 40 billion. We might be some distance from that, although some scenarios indicate it could be reached by the mid 22nd century. But our infallible guides in the Vatican think we can just rush pell mell towards such a population boundary and somehow all the problems will sort themselves out.

As a former Protestant, I think the Catholic position on artificial contraception is garbage, and so obviously do a lot of other practising Catholics. The large families of yesteryear are no longer obvious in our churches. God’s given us a brain and expects us to use it.

The Pope meanwhile, who is ultimately responsible for this policy, lives in a virtual castle, surrounded by some of the world’s most expensive and elaborate works of art, while in Africa, Mexico, and the Phillipinies, many families live on dumps. in ghettos, and in shanty towns.

The church’s answer to this situation? Have more children you can’t afford to feed, house and educate.

My sympathy is still with the general Protestant position.

I lfted this from another web site … “Based on a United Nations report released in 2003 and reported by BBC News, about 25,000 people die each day from starvation. This was before the current food crisis.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Excuse me. . .Bob, with due respect, take it ‘outside this thread’ please.

Your ‘assumptions’ are not germane to the topic. The topic is not on your ‘personal’ views. You aren’t addressing the topic, you’re preaching your ‘gospel on contraception’. That isn’t right. You speak of garbage but in all honesty, the garbage I see here is your personal viewpoint. . .

Open up a separate thread if you want to argue on your personal views, but please do not attempt to hijack this one. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

I think the simple (simplistic?) answer to the OP is, as with anything Protestant, there is no single answer. Some maintain a prohibition or rejection of contraception, some have no problem with it, and some have no official stand.
Also, some have changed their positions, and some have never had one to change.
Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That’s a good point, Jon, but the question is, why did (historically speaking) the Protestants (of all groups, basically) in so far as can be seen from any written, or oral, documentation, treat contraception as a moral evil **until **the early 20th century?

I know that now you’re quite correct; some Protestants teach that contraception is evil, some are neutral, some don’t really ‘say’ anything at all (but then again, they don’t ‘say’ that arson is evil or good but we can certainly judge by their actions and their reactions to it what they believe about it, right?). . .but really, can you find me historical proof that any of the “mainline” Protestants in the U.S. were teaching another doctrine other than contraception being morally wrong? Surely you aren’t saying that they taught ‘nothing’ about it. As Kay Cee noted, you can certainly go onto the Anglican sites, for example, and see proof that in 1910 they specifically noted contraception as a moral evil. I think we could probably go into documents from various other groups and find the same. . . and even if there was no ‘official’ statement I think that there would be examples of various pastors, say, speaking out about the evil. . .and surely, if what they were saying was against the actual teaching of their denomination, there would be some repercussions! I mean, look at for example Roger Williams back in puritan New England. When he started speaking up about ‘tolerance’, they expelled him to Rhode Island! Obviously, what he taught about was antithetical to PURITAN teaching, and was duly noted. And during the years leading up to the War Between the States, various preachers on either side of the Mason Dixon line spoke on the moral issue of slavery . . .so when people ‘preached’ against the ‘truth’, it was noted. But really, before 1930 and the Lambeth conference, there really does not seem to be any kind of evidence, oral or written, that any Christian church–Protestant or Catholic–was saying anything other than that contraception was a moral evil. . . and that if there was the occasional pastor of denomination X making the tentative “but perhaps we should consider whether or not ‘planned parenthood’ might be in the best interest for the family” he certainly made it clear that he was speaking ‘for himself’ and not with the backing of "my Baptist church leaders, or “the Society of Friends believes that. .” etc. That is why when the Lambeth Conference, which represented the Anglican communion, and which made their support of contraception a doctrinal issue for their entire group, was so ‘important’; it wasn’t just the occasional ‘rogue’ preacher’s teaching, this was an example of an entire denomination ‘reversing’ a teaching which had been held by it --as a denomination–from its inception, and was still being taught 20 years before the reversal. . .

 

[fish90]

Just as an aside a Papal Council voted 30-5 to relax its position on birth control in 1966, but the pope at the time thought the faithful could not handle that on top of Vatican II and rejected it (IMHO the second biggest mistake the church made in the 20th century). Later, Pope Paul I stated he planned to allow birth control and other reforms but died before he could push for them.

Things taught contrary to the Magisterium are moot anyway. If the Pope were to say the Bread and Body of the Eucharist can be transubstantiated from ketchup and Mustard instead of red wine and wheat bread, the teaching would be moot and impossible due to the infallibility of the Church.

This is a matter of faith and doctrine among Catholics.

Also, from what I have heard from Lutherans is that Luther is not the sole authority of Lutheranism. Good documentation about Luther’s opinion is not relevant because he does not have authority which is hard for a Catholic to understand. Please remember that Protestantism does not have unity even though they read and interpret the same bible.

Simply said, Luther’s opinion does not matter to Lutherans when discussing this issue from what I understand.

 

[drantolic]

John Calvin is Alive and Well in America, Today.
By D.R. Antolic

Even in modern America, we find that John Calvin’s lies are still being spread. We find evidence of this manifesting in such laws such as Vagrancy, which covers everything from loitering to spitting on the sidewalk. While such an act is not very clean, who does it really hurt. Historically laws such as “no loitering,” have been used as a preemptive strike to prevent a potential crime from happening. But in truth the American culture uses such laws to control the calibre of people who stay in a particular aria of town.
In January of 2007 Mayor “Maynot”, sorry Pollard of Vancouver, Washington, shut down the 7th street “transient” center sorry I was quoting Pollard: I meant to say transit center. In doing so the recently removed mayor also shut down over 20 small businesses in the area, who depended on the foot traffic that came from the transit center. Pollard did that so the Hilton Corporation would sign an agreement with Vancouver to build the recently opened Hilton Convention Center. If the transit center was not slated to be shut down the Convention Center would have opened.1 Around the same time the Vancouver “Department of Paedophiles,” sorry, the Police Department, beefed up patrols in the area and arrested a multitude of Vancouver’s Homeless for loitering. I know this because I watched it happen.
John Calvin’s “Hell Fire Theology,” taught that even a blameless infant, will burn in Hell, should that child died with out being baptized2. Calvin’s heretical teachings, have manifested themselves in how the American Government treats the people. We must keep in mind that in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, if you were not a white male who owned land the constitution did not apply to you. As a result, we have a foundation for the argument that the American Government was founded on Calvin’s teaching of “Hell Fire Theology,” also known as, “Predestination.” It is this teaching that I refer to in, “Trapped in Salem,” as the “Hell Fire Weapon.” The fact that the cops arrest the homeless for just taking a nap proves that the idea that you are not a citizen of America unless you own land still stands firm3. After all, how many times have you heard the term, “The Homeless Problem?” The government thinks of the lower class as “undesirables.” I should not have to say anymore.

If you wish to support our ministry, please shop at astore.amazon.com/studyofgodbooks-20

 

[Bob_Crowley]

There’s another link to the Protestant position on birth control. Essentially the early Reformers basically carried on their Catholic ethical training, which most of them had been exposed to either as former priests or monks, or at least in constant exposure to Catholic teaching before they broke away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_birth_control

But as time went on, if the Protestants were going to be true to their confession of the Primacy of Faith (and with it, conscience), then they started to change.

From the above listed article for example …

"Protestant scholars such as Jordan, however, maintain that Provan’s view has the effect of adding a law to the Bible it does not contain. Jordan states,

Jesus repeatedly denounced the Pharisees for their additions to the Law of God. Thus, we must be extremely careful about what laws we lay down for people. Does the Bible clearly state that contraception is sinful, or that people are obligated to have as many children as possible? If the Bible does not say these things, we need to fear God and be frightened of adding to His Word.[13]

Jordan argues also that the views of early Protestant Reformers on contraception are unreliable because they were heavily influenced by not just the Bible but Neo-Platonic mysticism (otherworldliness) and Aristolean teleologism (measuring all things only by their result), philosophies they inherited from their Catholic predecessors such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. Bart Garrett describes it, “They operated in a time and context that unhealthily looked at sex as a base, physical pleasure that carried with it spiritual detriments.”[14]"

Does the Bible say for example that contraception and in particular artificial contraception is “sinful”. Did Christ make any reference to it at all?

Again … "Conservative evangelical leader John F. MacArthur states the view,

Nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their family is complete … In our viewpoint, birth control is biblically permissible. At the same time, couples should not practice birth control if it violates their consciences (Romans 14:23)—not because birth control is inherently sinful, but because it is always wrong to violate the conscience. The answer to a wrongly informed conscience is not to violate it, but rather to correct and rightly inform one’s conscience with biblical truth.[15]"

Clearly the Protestants have changed their world view over time.

It is not a Biblical injunction that prohibits artificial contraception. It is Catholic tradition. And tradition can change.

For the sake of my old mate, Tantum Ergo.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Ok, AmericanJosiah, do us a favor, please?

Since you are rejecting the contention that prior to 1930, both Catholics and Protestants, on the whole, if they had any sort of statement or position on birth control/contraception, were clearly of the opinion that it was wrong. . .and that the Lambeth Conference of 1930 marks the first time that a major Christian denomination actually came out and stated that contraception would be morally permissible for certain reasons. . .and that as the 20th century passed, more and more Protestant Churches, if they did speak regarding contraception, became more inclined to say that it either could not be ‘found in the Bible’ or that it was something that was ‘up to the individual’ or indeed that it could be morally good. . .

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.

Right now, you don’t seem inclined even to accept the Lambeth Conferences own words (1910’s documentation which portrayed contraception/birth control as moral evil) as opposed to the 1930 words (birth control/contraception may be permitted in certain specific circumstances ) to the 1960s and beyond (where it has gone from being permitted in certain grave circumstances to being something that is for the individual to decide).

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.

I suppose that not every single solitary one of these groups (some of whom did not exist prior to 1930) did not have a written ‘statement’ regarding contraception (or indeed, regarding slave-holding prior to say 1850), or regarding divorce, or regarding theft, or fornication, or usury, etc. etc.

… 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?

If KayCee’s premise is not true, you should be able to prove it’s false…

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.

.