M
Miriam1947
Guest
I was just going to post about the 1930’s and contraception. The Pope at the time said it would lead to divorce, abortion, etc. He was right.
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think the ultimate intimate act between husband and wife id prayer. Sex can be very intimate, but you are giving it a status here that goes way beyond what it should. I’d also suggest it a very 20th century idea.
O
onenow1
Guest
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
This does not seem to be a request.
God Bless
This does not seem to be a request.
God Bless
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yeah, but morality isn’t simply a matter of chance and percentages…it’s about intent and action.
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
Here’s an article written by a Lutheran that talks about protestantism and contraception, it’s a very interesting read.
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
There are many quotes from the early church fathers which demonstrate that Christianity has always been against contraception. Contraception was not allowed by any Christian denomination until 1930. The act of Onan in Genesis has always been seen as a condemnation of contraception. Here’s what Luther and Calvin had to say about it:
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. For Onan goes in to 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 . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21) – Martin Luther
“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. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” – Martin Luther (Commentary on Genesis)
It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born . . . Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. (Commentary on Genesis [38])- John Calvin
I used to have trouble seeing the difference between NFP and artificial birth control, but I understand now. The analogy of eating food helps a lot to illustrate the point and I can try to explain if anyone is interested. I’ve also heard that there was a survey (idk which) taken that concluded that there is practically no difference between Catholics and non-Catholics in the use of contraception in the U.S. If that’s true then it’s very sad that American Catholics don’t even follow church teaching. Of course I’m not married so I don’t know the struggles of marriage so I don’t speak with experience.
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
There are many quotes from the early church fathers which demonstrate that Christianity has always been against contraception. Contraception was not allowed by any Christian denomination until 1930. The act of Onan in Genesis has always been seen as a condemnation of contraception. Here’s what Luther and Calvin had to say about it:
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. For Onan goes in to 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 . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21) – Martin Luther
“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. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.” – Martin Luther (Commentary on Genesis)
It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born . . . Moreover he [Onan] thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. (Commentary on Genesis [38])- John Calvin
I used to have trouble seeing the difference between NFP and artificial birth control, but I understand now. The analogy of eating food helps a lot to illustrate the point and I can try to explain if anyone is interested. I’ve also heard that there was a survey (idk which) taken that concluded that there is practically no difference between Catholics and non-Catholics in the use of contraception in the U.S. If that’s true then it’s very sad that American Catholics don’t even follow church teaching. Of course I’m not married so I don’t know the struggles of marriage so I don’t speak with experience.
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
Also, I agree that the title of this thread doesn’t exactly sound very ecumenical, more of a challenge.
T
TedDC
Guest
Well, why shouldn’t they be able to have sex whenever they like it?
J
JohnnyReb
Guest
Thanks for responding. I am aware of the point you bring up, and agree with you point to an extend. Where I think we part ways is that I do not believe that using ABC shows any more malicious intent then using NFP. I see it as arrogant that the RCC thinks it knows the intent of all who use ABC. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thank you. It is interesting that Luther and Calvin hold unto this view and considering it was spoken about five hundred years ago, perhaps it is true after all that birh control is a twentieth century innovation.
M
mark_a
Guest
From what I can see, with the exception of WELS and a few Anglo-Catholics, their views are not in the least varied. They are all for it.
Sadly, even the WELS website has removed their anti-contraceptive article, which by the way, took a very dim view of NFP.
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
Here’s Wesley and Henry.
"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. - John Wesley (Commentary on Genesis 38)
Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife that he had married, and of the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother, as he was in duty bound. … Note, Those sins that dishonour the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections.
"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. - John Wesley (Commentary on Genesis 38)
Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife that he had married, and of the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother, as he was in duty bound. … Note, Those sins that dishonour the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections.
- Matthew Henry (Commentary on Genesis 38 1-11)
I
inocente
Guest
I can’t really argue that point as I’m not in the States, but…
The US has less than 5% of the world population and doesn’t express a median, so the stats can’t necessarily be extrapolated. The other problem is we can’t rerun history to correlate cause and effect, particularly when a number of other social changes will have had their own influences.
I do think attempts to conflate abortion with contraception are off-base though. There’s no reason why someone can’t be adamantly anti-abortion yet pro-contraception. There’s also no reason why someone can’t be against the pill but for condoms. Lumping them all together, as some want, feels as though arguments are being borrowed to shore up a case that can’t be made on its own merits.
An interesting statistic is that it seems a large proportion of Catholics in various countries accept contraception whatever their views on abortion. Despite the title of the thread, this isn’t a Protestant v Catholic battle.
I
inocente
Guest
Sex in marriage is sharing an expression of your love, giving yourself to each other. It also releases pressures that could otherwise lead to adultery. Abstinence tends to work against both, and trying to make sex in marriage about procreation adds an unnecessary and potentially destructive tension. Sex shouldn’t be a big deal. Marriage is about love, not asceticism.
Using a condom this time doesn’t stop us from not using one next time. The command isn’t about breeding like rabbits!
This is where I get lost. Why is sharing your love and gaining pleasure naughty? What’s wrong with pleasure anyway? Jesus sets us free, so why this puritanical streak?
I
inocente
Guest
We read the Bible in the Spirit, and so are reluctant to take lonely verses as gospel without good cause, nor do we accept that planting mixed crops or eating shellfish are sins. When I say “we” I expect that means all of us, not just Protestants.
So: Having fun isn’t unbiblical (in the context of marriage here). A condom doesn’t reject God any more than abstinence. Sex in marriage is about giving, not taking and would only be selfish if reduced to copulation, where the spouse is treated as a mere object.
I
inocente
Guest
There are so many issues with these verses, but to take a few more: There’s no commandment. Onan didn’t wear a condom. The LORD put him to death in exactly the way He doesn’t tend to kill guys who use condoms. And as Henry says Onan “refused to raise up seed unto his brother, as he was in duty bound” but few of us sign up to any equivalent duty.
Some see the verses as requiring that sex be about procreation alone, but that ignores the plain fact that Onan was put to death for not following instructions. OK fine, it’s a sin to not follow God’s orders, but where’s the order that sex is only about procreation, incidentally countermanding 1 Cor 7?
In my branch the creed is basically “Jesus is Lord and the rest is less important so make up your own mind”.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I agree with you that one can’t draw definite conclusions from the statistics - there are too many variables. But I think that there is some substance to the basic argument. Once contraception becomes normative, the mental connection between sex and procreation tends to weaken, on the level of the individual but also on the level of the society. Think about how sexuality is understood, and really abused, in the media as an example. Or think about the American attitude to public breastfeeding, which seems far removed from this topic, but which seems to allow breast as sex objects but not maternal objects, as if the two are not connected. We do not equate sexuality with procreation. We feel they are separate, and entitled to sexual activity without children. Even Catholics here on CAF regularly argue that sex is necessary for marriage, and that it is some kind of “right” or that a marriage will seriously suffer without it.I can’t really argue that point as I’m not in the States, but…
The US has less than 5% of the world population and doesn’t express a median, so the stats can’t necessarily be extrapolated. The other problem is we can’t rerun history to correlate cause and effect, particularly when a number of other social changes will have had their own influences.
I do think attempts to conflate abortion with contraception are off-base though. There’s no reason why someone can’t be adamantly anti-abortion yet pro-contraception. There’s also no reason why someone can’t be against the pill but for condoms. Lumping them all together, as some want, feels as though arguments are being borrowed to shore up a case that can’t be made on its own merits.
An interesting statistic is that it seems a large proportion of Catholics in various countries accept contraception whatever their views on abortion. Despite the title of the thread, this isn’t a Protestant v Catholic battle.
When that connection has broken down in our minds, at an almost unconscious level, I think it sets up a situation where an increase in abortion is likely. People expect to be able to be sexually active, even if having a child would be a serious problem. And society is not gentle to these kinds of unwanted pregnancies - not so much in the sense of condemning unwed mothers, which isn’t common - but in that it makes fun of such people for not “knowing how to prevent conception” and doesn’t give real help for mothers in this predicament (for example through decent paid maternity leave).
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
If anyone reads these passages and cannot discern that God is telling us not to use artificial contraception then they are reading a different book to me.
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 - Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.
Gen. 38:9 - also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.
Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.
Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).
Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.
Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.
Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.
1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”
Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.
Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.
Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.
Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.
Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.
Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.
1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.
Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.
Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.
Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.
1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.
Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills.
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 - Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.
Gen. 38:9 - also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.
Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.
Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).
Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.
Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.
Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.
1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”
Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.
Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.
Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.
Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.
Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.
Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.
1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.
Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.
Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.
Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.
1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.
Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills.
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
As mentioned by someone else on here - until the 1930’s ALL Christians (Protestant and Catholic) believed that artificial contraception was wrong. Who has the right to change that doctrine and why if the famous protestant theologians got that teaching so wrong, how can you trust them on anything else?
Anglicans
At the Anglican Conference in 1908 (when your Mum’s Mum was still alive), the Bishops of the Anglican Communion 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.”
That’s what they said about contraception in 1908. Then, 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.”
By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was just another accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents “in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife.”
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened regarding the teaching on contraception among all Protestant churches in the 1900s, with no exceptions. A constant Judao-Christian teaching on contraception, thousands of years old, was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years.
This brings up an unsettling choice, for Protestantism: either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930, or, Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance since 1960. One or the other,
Let’s look at Protestant history on the subject of contraception.
Martin Luther on contraception (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.”
John Calvin on contraception (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 on contraception (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.
Examining sermons and commentaries, of 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. Not once was it ever heard that contraception was ok. **NOT ONE! **On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened? It’s the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world attempting to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the contraception dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood that would engulf the other Protestant Churches, too. In the next 30 years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views regarding contraception. The most terrible point is that just a few years earlier, in 1908, the Anglican Church condemned the very contraception that they would later embrace.
Anglicans
At the Anglican Conference in 1908 (when your Mum’s Mum was still alive), the Bishops of the Anglican Communion 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.”
That’s what they said about contraception in 1908. Then, 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.”
By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was just another accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents “in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife.”
The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened regarding the teaching on contraception among all Protestant churches in the 1900s, with no exceptions. A constant Judao-Christian teaching on contraception, thousands of years old, was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years.
This brings up an unsettling choice, for Protestantism: either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930, or, Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance since 1960. One or the other,
Let’s look at Protestant history on the subject of contraception.
Martin Luther on contraception (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.”
John Calvin on contraception (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 on contraception (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.
Examining sermons and commentaries, of 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. Not once was it ever heard that contraception was ok. **NOT ONE! **On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
So what happened? It’s the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world attempting to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the contraception dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood that would engulf the other Protestant Churches, too. In the next 30 years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views regarding contraception. The most terrible point is that just a few years earlier, in 1908, the Anglican Church condemned the very contraception that they would later embrace.
I
inocente
Guest
You make a good point. The whole business of sex is badly confused everywhere. I don’t know enough to say whether abortion should be banned outright but can easily understand the case for doing so. On the other hand, for example, I’ve no idea how to reconcile the sanctity of marriage with civil union, the ease of divorce, and the consequent damage.
The issues revolve around the steady increase in personal freedom. Most people will now only accept arguments that make sense rather than just obeying commands from on high. I’ve tried to understand the Church’s case against contraception and homosexuality but found nothing compelling, and it seems many Catholics have the same problem. The confusion affects everyone to the determent of all.
Benedict (I like Benedict) recently said that “there was much in the area of sexual ethics that needed to be pondered and expressed in new ways”. His new ways may not go down too well with some of CAF
but all our churches could try to find a new way. Simple, positive, compelling arguments that bring everyone not to some dusty doctrine but, as Benedict also wrote recently, to a living scripture and a living God.
N
Newbie2
Guest
No, not harsh at all, I understand.Thanks for responding. I am aware of the point you bring up, and agree with you point to an extend. Where I think we part ways is that I do not believe that using ABC shows any more malicious intent then using NFP. I see it as arrogant that the RCC thinks it knows the intent of all who use ABC. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
It’s pretty obvious that the intent is to contracept, no? How do you see that as arrogant? Or perhaps you seen the Church presupposing the reasons behind the intent?
This is a topic that while I accept as a Church teaching, that I struggle with. They key here is that there is both intent and action. While the intent of both NFP and ABC is to avoid conception, there is the matter of the act vs. the “non-act”.
- Status