Protestants & Contraception

[Proud2bRC]

darwindidntknow:

So using birth control is sinful? I don’t agree with that at all…

Then you disagree with ALL of Christianity, for ALL time:

Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control (with extended excerpt of protestant theologians’ statements):

191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.” (2:10:91:2) “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (2:10:95:3).

307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes

“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (6:20)

“God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring” (6:23:18).

325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1

“*f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy”

375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies

“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” (26:5:2 ).

391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew

“*n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]” (28:5).

393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian

“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” (1:19).

419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence “I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife” (1:15:17).**

 

[Proud2bRC]

darwindidntknow:

So using birth control is sinful? I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t feel the need to restate my opinion because it is all stated in the website I posted above…

522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons

“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman” (1:12).

**Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - **

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”

Protestant Theologians on the Onan Incident and Birth Control

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -

Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -

"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

“His sin was extremely heinous, not only as it proceeded from envy of his brother’s honor, and contempt of the promised seed, but as it was horrid and unnatural in itself.” (John Brown, Presbyterian, 1722-1787)

“This is always a shameful sin, yet much more atrocious than a case of incest or adultery: we call it a sin of the effeminate, indeed, even a sin of Sodomy … therefore it was quite right for God to kill him.” (Abraham Calovius, Lutheran, 1612-1686)

“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous … if any woman ejects a fetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment.” (John Calvin, 1509-1564)

“The sin of self-pollution, which is generally considered to be that of Onan, is one of the most destructive evils ever practiced by fallen man. In many respects it is far worse than common whoredom, and has in its train more awful consequences … God, and God alone, can save thee from an evil which has in its issue the destruction of the body, and the final perdition of thy soul! Whether this may have been the sin of Onan, or not, is a matter at present of small moment - it may be thy sin, therefore take heed, lest God slay thee for it.” (Adam Clarke, Methodist, 1762-1832)

“God destests and punishes shameful acts. Shortness of life for the wicked is the punishment of sins. The sin of effeminacy and voluntary pouring out of the seed is contrary to nature: this in itself is compared by the Hebrews to homicide. Thomas argues that this is more serious than homicide.” (Johann Gerhard, Lutheran, 1582-1637) “This was so much the worse because the Messiah was to descend from Judah, and had he [Onan] not been guilty of this wickedness, he might have had the honor of being one of his ancestors. Note, those sins that dishonour the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and the evidences of vile affections.” (Matthew Henry, 1662-1714)

 

[Proud2bRC]

darwindidntknow:

So using birth control is sinful? I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t feel the need to restate my opinion because it is all stated in the website I posted above…

“Onan’s sin, a deadly wickedness, an example to be held in abhorrence, as condemnatory, not only of secret sins of self-pollution, but also of all similar offences in sexual relations, and even in marriage itself … Onan’s offence … was a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong. The sin named after him is destructive as a pestilence that walketh in darkness, destroying directly the body and the soul of the young.” (Johann Peter Lange, Reformed, 1802-1884)

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin … that worthless fellow refused to exercise love. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.” (Martin Luther, 1483-1546) “For the sin of Onan, it was most detestable, because it was unnatural to spill the seed given him for generation.” (John Mayer, Anglican, 1583-1664)

“He who lies with his wife, as if with a strange woman, is an adulterer … Onan’s sin here was self-pollution, aggravated much by his envy that moved him to it.” (John Trapp, Puritan, 1601-1669)

“Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body … he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Thos sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - and it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (John Wesley, Methodist, 1703-1791)

“The lewdness of this fact was composed of lust, of envy, and murder … [murder,] in that there is a seminal vital virtue, which perishes if the seed be spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion … his brother Er before, was his brother in evil thus far, that both of them satisfied their sensuality against the order of nature … which may be for terror … to those, who, in marriage, care not for the increase of children, but for the satisfying of thier concupiscence.” (Westminster Annotations, Calvinist, 1657)

(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, “We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900’s. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it.” )

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, “The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.”

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, “Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method…” but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, “the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.” 1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage) “Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

 

[Proud2bRC]

darwindidntknow:

So using birth control is sinful? I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t feel the need to restate my opinion because it is all stated in the website I posted above…

1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II

Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)

1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)

1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (2399)

 

[kenmraz]

darwindidntknow:

So using birth control is sinful? I don’t agree with that at all. I don’t feel the need to restate my opinion because it is all stated in the website I posted above…

A quick review of the link you posted points out where the difference between Catholics and Protestants really lies: authority. The fact is that the article states “and we should not add universal rules that are not in Scripture”. That indicates Sola Scriptura, the bible alone, Sacred Tradition doesn’t count. Why exactly do they limit themselves to scripture alone? Because tradition is passed down not in a book, which won’t argue with me when I misuse and abuse it, but by an institution made up of people, with one at the head, in authority. The idea that we can interpret the Bible ourselves. On a purely rational level, if I believe that than for me everything falls apart and I may as well become an agnostic. If the underlying principle is that:

1. both you and I can read the book
2. ask the Holy Spirit for guidance
3. be assured we are correct in our interpretation by the Spirit

than it is a lie, because we don’t agree. Therefore, I just proved the whole thing wrong and it is not worth believing in. That is like saying that we both do the following math:

1. write the following equation: 2+2=?
2. pray the Holy Spirit that you understand math

You answer 3 and I answer 5 (or vice versa, or we both come up with 3, or 7, or …) It doesn’t work. The answer is 4. Yeah, some passages in scripture are so crystal clear we both come up with 4 (“Thou shalt not kill”), but hey, not always. There are some people who would say the answer is 3 if its an unwanted pregnancy and 5 if they are old and “suffering” (and keep me tied up at the nursing home)

The point is, the page you link to bases its arguments on their interpretation of scripture, alone, unaided by any real believable guarantee of infallibility of their interpretation and bereft of any enlightenment of either Sacred or (Christian) man-made tradition. So while it is good to know what they teach, so that we can dialog with them in charity, it doesn’t make it right. It fails to stand up to reason.

Up until 1930, all Christians answered a resounding “4!”. After that, you have a myriad number of voices answering “1!” “37!” “21!”, etc. The Catholic Church just keeps patiently saying “4!”.

If math, which is just a simple tool, is that consistent, how about God who is “the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow” be any less consistent.

Also, they make the following statement “…But some people go further and argue from this that since children are gifts from God, it is wrong to take steps to regulate the timing and number of children one has…”. This is undoubtedly aimed at the Church, since it is the only voice against contraception, but it is wrong. The Catechism states that “. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood2368regulation of procreation”, so the Church DOES recognize the need at times for this. The end may be the same, but it doesn’t justify the means.

I hope I do not seem to be attacking; it is just that this was one of the main reasons I left the (Protestant) Episcopal Church and came home this last Easter. I started a painful journey 5 years ago, which ultimately came to my acceptance of the Catholic Church. My wife and I had no problem with contraception. We used it all the time, for the stated purpose of spacing our children. But underlying that was the idea that we didn’t want children at the time. We were not open to life. We simply wanted to be able to indulge ourselves whenever we felt like it, without the possibility of the responsibility that goes with it.

And that is what is so wrong with contraception. It leads to the idea that sex is for pleasure, rather than pleasure for the spouses and the possibility for a new life to be created by God. And once sex is just for pleasure, why restrict it to just married people? or with your spouse? or with member of the same sex? Now marriage isn’t about procreating children. Its about a tax break and certain legal priveleges accorded to a man and a woman. Hey, why restrict it to a members of the opposite sex? Thats mean! Why restrict marriage to 2 people? Isn’t it about community?

I’m not accusing you (or me prior to my conversion) of believing those lies at the end of that stream. I didn’t, and I doubt you do either. But if you follow that logic from 1930 to 2004 and look where we are, you can see that is what is happening. The Catholic Church was right all along.

<1 of 2>

 

[kenmraz]

One of the most difficult things I had to come to grips with was this; but the line of reason informed by history showed it to be true. I had to really look into myself and ask, why did I want to use contraception? Was there any reason other than I wanted to have my cake and eat it to? Was it just that I wanted to enjoy the pleasure of the marital embrace, without the responsibility of having a child? Was it that a child at that moment would have kept me from buying a new car and us going on fancy vacations, and keep me awake all night? I had to admit my reasons started to sound a little selfish.

At this point, I didn’t even need to get into how the marital act is an efficacious sign of God: two persons in one union, the love between the two being so profound that it is itself a third person. (BTW, that thought was so beautiful that it completely re-oriented my view of sex). On purely historical terms I could see that birth control is an evil. It may not be visible on an individual level. But magnified across 74 years and millions of people and the evil of it has decimated our society.

As Christ said “By their fruits you shall know them.”. The fruits of birth control are NOT good. Just look at the fruit. Also, just for fun, you can look at the roots: Margaret Sanger and her pals. Look at what they were really trying to accomplish: The Truth About Margaret Sanger. I see the birth control movement as an agenda that has two ends: 1) decimate the populations of the weak, the poor, the unfed, those whose color we don’t like, whose beliefs we don’t like; 2) enslave those left to their own passions so that they become to caught up in entertaining themselves to pose any real threat to your “elite and enlightened” group. (a good read of Huxley’s “Brave New World” fits in good right about here).

Anyhow, I will stop my rant. I went from being a staunch supporter of birth control, a pro-choice (in the politician sense, you know, I don’t agree, but I can’t impose my beliefs…) to where I am now because I was patient and honest with myself and I was willing to look at all my beliefs, where they had led me, and recognize how wrong they were. I went from being a confused mess regarding my sexuality, what it means to be a man, what is the purpose of life, etc., to being a whole and happy person. For that grace of conversion, I am eternally grateful for all of the people who responded to the Holy Spirit and enabled his work in me.

And I won’t kid anyone, it wasn’t and isn’t easy; my wife still holds to those beliefs and my coming into the Church has been like a bolt of lightning into our house. I only pray for the strength to give my wife the time she needs. I was looking with an open mind for 5 years, and I was willing to accept the pain of the realizations. I cannot expect nor do I expect my wife (or you or anyone else) to immediately embrace this. But I truly believe that if one persists in an objective search for truth, no matter what the cost to them in emotional baggage, the Lord will answer the search.

God bless,

Ken

 

[kenmraz]

<2 of 2>
One of the most difficult things I had to come to grips with was this; but the line of reason informed by history showed it to be true. I had to really look into myself and ask, why did I want to use contraception? Was there any reason other than I wanted to have my cake and eat it to? Was it just that I wanted to enjoy the pleasure of the marital embrace, without the responsibility of having a child? Was it that a child at that moment would have kept me from buying a new car and us going on fancy vacations, and keep me awake all night? I had to admit my reasons started to sound a little selfish.

At this point, I didn’t even need to get into how the marital act is an efficacious sign of God: two persons in one union, the love between the two being so profound that it is itself a third person. (BTW, that thought was so beautiful that it completely re-oriented my view of sex). On purely historical terms I could see that birth control is an evil. It may not be visible on an individual level. But magnified across 74 years and millions of people and the evil of it has decimated our society.

As Christ said “By their fruits you shall know them.”. The fruits of birth control are NOT good. Just look at the fruit. Also, just for fun, you can look at the roots: Margaret Sanger and her pals. Look at what they were really trying to accomplish: The Truth About Margaret Sanger. I see the birth control movement as an agenda that has two ends: 1) decimate the populations of the weak, the poor, the unfed, those whose color we don’t like, whose beliefs we don’t like; 2) enslave those left to their own passions so that they become to caught up in entertaining themselves to pose any real threat to your “elite and enlightened” group. (a good read of Huxley’s “Brave New World” fits in good right about here).

Anyhow, I will stop my rant. I went from being a staunch supporter of birth control, a pro-choice (in the politician sense, you know, I don’t agree, but I can’t impose my beliefs…) to where I am now because I was patient and honest with myself and I was willing to look at all my beliefs, where they had led me, and recognize how wrong they were. I went from being a confused mess regarding my sexuality, what it means to be a man, what is the purpose of life, etc., to being a whole and happy person. For that grace of conversion, I am eternally grateful for all of the people who responded to the Holy Spirit and enabled his work in me.

And I won’t kid anyone, it wasn’t and isn’t easy; my wife still holds to those beliefs and my coming into the Church has been like a bolt of lightning into our house. I only pray for the strength to give my wife the time she needs. I was looking with an open mind for 5 years, and I was willing to accept the pain of the realizations. I cannot expect nor do I expect my wife (or you or anyone else) to immediately embrace this. But I truly believe that if one persists in an objective search for truth, no matter what the cost to them in emotional baggage, the Lord will answer the search.

God bless,

Ken

An excellent book that helped me understand the teaching of the Church is Good News About Sex And Marriage: Answers To Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching
(Christopher West, Servant Books)

 

[kenmraz]

Excellent post!

One point needs to be made here that I need to stress, because I see fear in the eyes of my wife when she sees things like this:

Proud2bRC:

1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage) “Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

It is a grave sin (mortal in fact); but it CAN be forgiven. I think one thing that scares my wife is that she thinks if she believes this teaching, the Church is saying she is going to Hell, end of story.

“Don’t come to our Church, your not welcome, you evil sinner!” But that isn’t the case at all! The Church wants all the evil (and/or ignorant) sinners to come to her, repent and be baptised or reconciled and brought in. If someone feels that it is evil of the Church to speak so harshly and condemn everyone, they need to take a deep breath and listen to the rest of the Gospel. Christ gave us ALL of the sacraments and graces we need, and we are never beyond redemption until we die. The church doesn’t condemn anyone; she offers the truth and the sacraments, transmitting in a powerful, real, tangible and spiritual way the grace of Christ that can save us.

Fearing this is like the following story:

You make a statement of truth that falling in a mud hole makes one dirty; you also say we have showers and towels.

I walk down the street, start playing with some kids in the mud, or maybe I trip and fall in the mud by accident. I here tell from someone who doesn’t like you that you think falling in the mud makes you dirty; maybe they even tell me that you find dirty people distasteful. Or maybe no one tells me that, but I read something quoting you saying “mud makes people dirty” and I’m insulted so I quit reading before I get to the part about the showers, or maybe I don’t believe you have showers (that guy that doesn’t like you told me your showers were fakes without water, or maybe he said you only let clean people take showers )

I go around spreading the rumors I heard or my opinions that I formed in anger. I start to really dislike you, because after I think about what you said, I realize I’m dirty. But if I admit that, then your right. And since I don’t think you want to help me, but just point out that I’m dirty, I’m never going to come see you. I might even just start playing in the mud to prove you wrong (it doesn’t work, I just get dirtier).

Over time, a couple of things can happen:

1. I become so bitter that I begin to enjoy being in the mud. I never bath. Eventually, when I die, I go friendless because I lost all of them over time (who wants to be around someone who is vindictive, stinky, mud-covered anyhow).
2. I eventually tire of being dirty and see the truth in it. I go home and shower. I never come to see you, and so miss out the fullness of a beautiful friendship I could have had. But I don’t die alone. I may or may not persist in telling those nasty rumors though
3. I come to see you and find that you really have showers and towels, and really want to help me get cleaned up. Then you invite me into dinner, we become the best of friends and I have gained a wonderful counselor who helps me every time I fall in the mud.

Just my 2 cents! God bless,

Ken

 

[Tina]

rfk:

Short answer is don’t take it. The pill is an “abortifacient”, which means it causes abortions.

Even for Menopause too! can someone (please) give me infor about this! I would love to heard more about it! thanks, Why Doctors are saying to take birth control pills for: Menopause!

 

[baltobetsy]

Tina:

Even for Menopause too! can someone (please) give me infor about this! I would love to heard more about it! thanks, Why Doctors are saying to take birth control pills for: Menopause!

Until menopause is truly over, you can still ovulate, and, being irregular in your cycles, you have absolutely no idea when that might happen. The pill will indeed relieve some of the symptoms of menopause, but the possibility exists that you will ovulate and that the pill would then cause an early abortion.

Because the old standard hormone replacement therapy is now being shown to be unsafe, investigations are being made into other ways of relieving the symptoms of menopause. One way is SSRI-type anti-depressants, which can be very effective in relieving hot flashes, night sweats, mood swings, etc. Another way is the use of bio-identical hormone replacement (different from the usual man-made hormones). It’s a little difficult to find someone knowledgeable in this area, but I would start with a compounding pharmacist (who would be able to direct you to physicians using these methods), or perhaps the organization known as One More Soul, which keeps a list of physicians who will not prescribe birth control pills. Also, the Couple to Couple League may have a teaching couple in your area who might be able to point you to a doctor who can help. There’s a website for women experiencing surgical menopause (resulting from hysterectomy), which may have information that would help you to find a helpful practitioner. Lots of those ladies are really into natural hormone replacement. Here’s a link: www.hormonejungle.com

There’s plenty of help available for the symptoms of menopause; you don’t have to do something immoral. And, of course, like our foremothers before us, we can simply offer it up, as noted in an earlier post. There’s nothing like a hot flash to make one remember the fires of hell and the pains of purgatory!

Betsy

 

[Tina]

baltobetsy:

Until menopause is truly over, you can still ovulate, and, being irregular in your cycles, you have absolutely no idea when that might happen. The pill will indeed relieve some of the symptoms of menopause, but the possibility exists that you will ovulate and that the pill would then cause an early abortion.

Because the old standard hormone replacement therapy is now being shown to be unsafe, investigations are being made into other ways of relieving the symptoms of menopause. One way is SSRI-type anti-depressants, which can be very effective in relieving hot flashes, night sweats, mood swings, etc. Another way is the use of bio-identical hormone replacement (different from the usual man-made hormones). It’s a little difficult to find someone knowledgeable in this area, but I would start with a compounding pharmacist (who would be able to direct you to physicians using these methods), or perhaps the organization known as One More Soul, which keeps a list of physicians who will not prescribe birth control pills. Also, the Couple to Couple League may have a teaching couple in your area who might be able to point you to a doctor who can help. There’s a website for women experiencing surgical menopause (resulting from hysterectomy), which may have information that would help you to find a helpful practitioner. Lots of those ladies are really into natural hormone replacement. Here’s a link: www.hormonejungle.com

There’s plenty of help available for the symptoms of menopause; you don’t have to do something immoral. And, of course, like our foremothers before us, we can simply offer it up, as noted in an earlier post. There’s nothing like a hot flash to make one remember the fires of hell and the pains of purgatory!

Betsy

Hi Betsy,

Thank you for the Website! I will check it out! also I save it on the fav’s! thanks! I have been trying to talk to my doctor! it’s getting the run around! I’am going look for a new Doctor! I just wish this menopause thing would just to away! grrr later I’am going back on the internet to read more about it! God help me, lol. thanks again.

someone told about surgical menopause! is that good? my doctor told me that too! I’am alittle scare, but I know God is with me.

 

[Lance_O]

**Great Post!! ** I was waiting for someone to point to Gen 38! I noticed that that website that **darwindidntknow ** posted didn’t have this Bible verse listed.

Calvin:

They argue that it is not specifically condemned in the Bible, so it is a matter of “Christian liberty” (i.e. multiple viewpoints are allowable on this issue). The “sin of Onan” (Gen. 38) is a “problem text” for thoughtful Protestants, but most of them will explain it as: “Onan was punished for disobeying the law of Moses (that he should take his brother’s wife) not for using contraception.”

How can some of our Protestant brothers and sisters say that Onan was punished for disobeying the Law of Moses when Onan was a son of Judah, who was a son of Jacob (Gen 46:8-12) more that 400 years before Moses was born?

darwindidntknow, Thanks for the link to help explain your feelings on this matter. It’s great that you have taken the time to read over the forum on this issue and be apart of the discussion.

I agree the points that Proud2bRC and kenmraz have made with quotes from Early Church Fathers and Protestant Ministers and about Authority.

 

[jc413]

I think the simplest answer so far has been that since there is no “Protestant” church, there is no “Protestant” view on contraception.

Interestingly, I regularly visit a site mostly visited by Christian Moms. There is apparently a very large contingent of Protestants who have been, as they put it, “convicted by the Holy Spirit” to leave their family size up to God. They call themselves “quiverfull” (or QF for short), and not only do they not believe in birth control, but they also do not believe in NFP.

I was really encouraged by this (even though dh and I DO believe in NFP) because up until this point, I had NEVER heard of a Protestant who was against birth control!

 

[darcee]

For clarification.

Mormons aren’t Protestant.

Mormons don’t teach against ABC they teach the families should provide as many bodies for Heavenly Father’s Spiritual children as possible while considering their health and financial resources.

They actually don’t even take a very strong stance against abortion calling it a “Sin like unto murder” not actually murder.

-D

 

[ProLifeAction]

There is a lot of talk on this thread about the bible verse regarding the “Sin of Onan” but let’s remember there are many other bible verses regarding contraception.

Here is a great brochure discussing the other bible verses called “The Bible vs. Contraception”. It is excellent & you can order it for $0.30/each.

omsoul.com/item395.html

 

[Calvin]

Lance O:

How can some of our Protestant brothers and sisters say that Onan was punished for disobeying the Law of Moses when Onan was a son of Judah, who was a son of Jacob (Gen 46:8-12) more that 400 years before Moses was born?

You are absolutely correct. Some of the Protestant “scholarship” I have seen on Onan is really terrible but this is an explanation I have seen offered. (I’m glad SOMEONE noticed that – props to you.)

To be fair I should give the full version of the ‘violate the law of Moses’ variant – they say that Onan violated a “law of Noah” that was, ultimately, incorporated into the “law of Moses” but we don’t have any written record of it prior to Moses. Which immediately brings to mind the objection: “what about Bible-only?” Where do you get the “law of Noah” from?

… just a week ago I was arguing about the death penalty with my dad (a Protestant pastor-turned police officer) and he said, “the death penalty is part of the law of Moses, God supports the death penalty.” I said to him, “well, according to your theology, we don’t have to obey the law of Moses anymore (e.g. eat kosher foods) so why should we care about the death penalty part?” He said: “well it was in the law of Noah too” (he’s a dispensationalist). And I said, “if we don’t have to obey the law of Moses, why should we have to obey the law of Noah?” Then my step-mother (what about Jesus’ law of divorce?) intervened and we ate breakfast and talked about the Lakers.

So, yeah, Protestant theology can get a little goofy sometimes. These two stories really illustrate the “tradition-gap” in Protestant theology. Some are willing to postulate a “law of Noah” and insist on “no creed but the Bible.” I really don’t get it (and haven’t since I was 14 or so) and that is why I’m “checking out” Catholicism (and Orthodoxy)…

-C

 

[baltobetsy]

Tina:

someone told about surgical menopause! is that good? my doctor told me that too! I’am alittle scare, but I know God is with me.

“Surgical menopause” is a kind of nickname for what happens when a woman has a hysterectomy and also loses her ovaries. It’s sudden and unnatural and very uncomfortable. Are you being told to have a hysterectomy? Wanna take this to private messages?

Betsy

 

[monina]

As a cradle catholic struggling to live out my faith, I have tried very hard to understand the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception. One argument I really can’t understand is the reference to Onan, who spilled his seed and was then slain by God. The argument seems to be that this was so disgraceful that God killed him for this sin.

However, wasn’t Lot also slain by God for looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah as it burned? Shouldn’t we then assume that this is also a heinous sin worthy of God’s wrath?

Please help me as I struggle with my understanding of Church teaching.

Thank you

 

[Lance_O]

monina:

However, wasn’t Lot also slain by God for looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah as it burned?

Just for clarification…it was Lot’s wife who was turned to a pilliar of salt for looking back towards Sodom and Gomarrah (Gen 19:26)

Thanks, Lance

 

[Lance_O]

Calvin:

To be fair I should give the full version of the ‘violate the law of Moses’ variant – they say that Onan violated a “law of Noah” that was, ultimately, incorporated into the “law of Moses” but we don’t have any written record of it prior to Moses.

Never heard of the 'law of Noah" before; that’s a new one to me.

Calvin:

Which immediately brings to mind the objection: “what about Bible-only?” Where do you get the “law of Noah” from?

I like your response.

Peace, Lance