Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScapularDude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While the primary method of action of hormonal birth control is to prevent an egg from being released, there is a tiny possibility for a secondary method to be invoked which keeps the embryo from implanting. Based on this alone, it is completely consistent for the Catholic Church to be against any method of birth control which causes the death of an embryo, no matter how small the chance.

However with that said, I think the Church should also be consistent on the matter and put out warnings about all the other medications that have the same chances preventing implantation even though their primary purpose is not birth control.
 
copperblade said:
While the primary method of action of hormonal birth control is to prevent an egg from being released, there is a tiny possibility for a secondary method to be invoked which keeps the embryo from implanting. Based on this alone, it is completely consistent for the Catholic Church to be against any method of birth control which causes the death of an embryo, no matter how small the chance.
Click to expand...
I agree, it is consistent. Not totally disagreeing with you either, ESMDHokie77. Just wanted to clear things up for those that are unfamiliar with IUD’s, or for those that are okay with birth control but not with abortion, that they are not technically abortifacients. At worst (and the difference may be irrelevent to you which is fine), they interfere with the development of embryos. (For instance, a good portion of pregnancies that do occur with an IUD are ectopic. Therefore, the IUD did not kill the embryo, it just prevented a normal pregnancy.)
 
When a peson tells me to “defend the use of ABC”, my inclination is to tell them to defend their own use of not using ABC. Still, I don’t think it was meant to be combative, just another way of trying to see the protestant side of the issue.

I personally respect the Catholic view and if Catholics feel comfortable with it, it’s really not up to me to tell them they are wrong.

For me the Catholic view is inconsistent with itself. I don’t understand how it is acceptable to say that every act of sexual intercourse has to be open to the possibility of life, while then providing couples with the escape hatch of NFP. If a couple is faithfully tracking the wife’s cycle and they know that certain times of the month won’t result in pregnancy, then what exactly is the couples intent? It seems to me the intent is to avoid pregnancy. It doesn’t really matter what the reasons are. They puposefully are acting in a way so as to avoid the possibility of life. To then say, well, they could still get pregnant, because it’s biologically possible, is to use the same argument as using ABC and still getting pregnant. It’s still biologically possible.

Catholics, I’m very open to understanding your point of view. Perhaps I have missed something essential.

Is the argument, that any attempt to avoid pregnancy is morally wrong, or is it just artificial methods that is deemed morally wrong? Is NFP the middle of the road?

Thanks to all who answer.
 
I don’t know what’s covered in these super long threads and I tend to think that a long thread is one in where people don’t know how to discuss an issue. I don’t know if what i’m saying has or has not been said yet, But I’ll put my two thoughts in anyway.

I find the catholic doctrine against contraception offensive because it seems to deny the intrinsic value of sexual intercourse and relations, that there is something vile in it to act this way in marriage without a reproductive intent.

Sexual intercourse isn’t even necessarily reproductive and I have never found attempts to salvage the value of relationships where reproduction isn’t possible from the anti contraception view convincing. There’s nothing wrong with a couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy continues to have sex. And there is no openness to life there.

The allowance for use of NFP but not less natural methods I find inconsistent. I geuss supposedly it is because NFP leaves one “open to life?” because it is not 100 percent effect? But then many if not all other forms of birth control leave one “open to life” since they aren’t 100 percent effective either.

God made sex. It is good and he didn’t make it necessarily and intrinsically connected with actual reproduction. That either happens or it doesn’t and that doesn’t reduce the value of sex as an intense bonding experience in the slightest.
 
Has any woman ever been to the gynocologist, been offered a type of ABC (especially right after having a baby), and been told that the birth control is abortive?

Not unless you have a Catholic doctor who knows you well enough to not feel threatened being sued!

Until I started studying Catholicism, I never once read (and I read a fair amount) or heard anyone- in church or out- mention this. There was a time when I was on BC as a young adult because of problems with my cycle that had nothing to do with my personal life (as in I was not sexually active) and my mother found out (saw it in my medicine cabinet as I did not hide it) and flipped out! Totally hysterical! She definitely sees BC as the enabler for fornication in a world with morals flushed away. And this is the only view that I ever heard (in the Baptist church) about ABC. I actually was pro-choice for a long time b/c I misunderstood this stance as pregnancy and requiring a woman to have a baby as punishment for having sex. And I did not think that was fair to the baby. that is a very simplistic explanation of my reason btw.
Talk of marital relations was pretty much never discussed, but then again I stopped attending church in my early 20’s so perhaps older groups do discuss it.

When and how do Catholics learn these rules? I would not think at Mass as children certainly do not need to hear about married relations and confirmation for most would also be too young.
 
It is touched on during the year before Confirmation. If you are to have a Catholic Wedding, both the Bride and Groom must go through Pre-Cana classes together with a Priest for approx. 3 months prior to the wedding date. It is explained fully during these sessions.
 
Im CATHOLIC and i do understand the churches teaching on sexuality as a large entity but I do believe some of the teaching in specific areas is open to question.

I asked the question once of a priest what is the difference between the use of condoms and natural birth control, isn’t the intention the same the prevention of sperm reaching the egg. I got the reply but the natural way leaves room for conception to occur. So I asked doesnt a split condom leave room to and if God wanted a pregnancy that bad it shouldnt be hard to cause. The final answer I got was in reality it was down to my conscience.

But now im older the natural birth control method has one major advantage over Condoms or other methods and that is learning to develope self control a trait that developes spirituality. It also raises the importance of the sex act as anything worthwhile is always worth waiting for. But for those folks with irregular untrustworthy cycles I think personal circumstances and concience must be a judge.

But be clear in my mind abortion is always wrong be it chemical pill or coil

So the question above should be rephrased not Protestant defend your use but Catholic Apologists explain clearly why they are banned and why its a mortal sin on par with murder to use them.

Love and Respect
 
So I asked doesnt a split condom leave room to and if God wanted a pregnancy that bad it shouldnt be hard to cause.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to split it. condoms are not 100 percent effective.
The final answer I got was in reality it was down to my conscience.
Click to expand...
not a bad answer on this topic. Some of us have no problems of conscience on this issue. Some of us have no problem with valuing sex as a God given means to celebrate the other person and marriage, and to model the divine image apart from the procreative aspect (part of but not necessary to modeling the divine image since God did not have to create).
But now im older the natural birth control method has one major advantage over Condoms or other methods and that is learning to develope self control a trait that developes spirituality.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is that advantage. But self control and temporarily abstaining from sex for spiritual purposes can be pursued even if contraceptive is used.
 
Are we still talking about contraception (I geuss the above could be in response to abortion)? Even in the catholic view, we are still stewards over our reproductive bodies. We can still decide to use NFP or abstain from sex. Even deciding who to marry or whether to marry or not is part of the participation in deciding what humans come into existence.

If that’s too godlike for some, tough beans. We are made in the image of God and that carries weight even in this matter.
 
My wife and I abandoned ABC while we were still protestants. When we told our couples group at church of our findings and our intentions they looked at us like we were from another planet. They even tried to have an intervention with us to get us to start using it again. A few months later we were formally received into Christ’s Body, the Catholic Church.

All christian denominations were against ABC up until the 1930’s when the Anglican Church grudgingly caved in. Whats up? Did all protestants simply not understand that ABC was not sinful for the first couple hundred years of protestantism? Did the protestants in the 30’s get some new biblical insight? If you want some interesting reads, read up on what protestant theologians and pastors were saying about birth control prior to the 30’s. The Catholic Church is the ONLY church that has remained true to the Christian teaching about artificial birth control every other church has blown with the winds of culture.
 
Whats up? Did all protestants simply not understand that ABC was not sinful for the first couple hundred years of protestantism? Did the protestants in the 30’s get some new biblical insight?
Click to expand...
Why not. The church’s understanding has always been developing and no responsible historian of theology could say otherwise. God still teaches the church. Don’t forget that little get together in Rome, vatican II.
 
developing, yes,…
reversing an important view on a sin: NO.

Peace,
Phil
 
This view on sin just doesn’t have good biblical backing (at most, the sin of Onan is very week evidence given ambiguities of what it was specifically that he did wrong). This it is very open to question, even to protestants. And my investigations into the matter have yeilded correct information, I got the impression that NFP is viewed as a sin by traditionalists who reject vatican II, that at one point (as one poster here recorded) some preists were telling their flock to follow their conscience.

And again, this whole calling a sacred loving act that has intrinsic value a sin is deplorable.

And this matter is a central doctrine? Good grief. Whether we hold this view or not Christ is still the Christ, Yahweh is still the one true God, the creeds are still central guides to faith, scripture is still God breathed. Good heavens, this matter doesn’t hold a candle as a central doctrine.

No change in dogma? I’ve been told that before vatican II, the catholic church was restrictivist and post vatican II, it is inclusivistic. Don’t see how a view about who goes to hell and who doesn’t wouldn’t be a dogmatic shift.
 
Yeah, I’m not an expert, but this idea that there was no doctrinal development in the church just isn’t defensible, especially when looking at the early church when so many central doctrines (actual central doctrines!) were hammered out. And even today, are there really no catholic priests who hold to penal substitution? Because that had not been articulated in the church explicitely (save from what could be drawn from Paul) until John Calvin or at least it’s predecessor of satisfaction theory from anselm. And soteriology is a pretty central issue.
 
geebob said:
Why not. The church’s understanding has always been developing and no responsible historian of theology could say otherwise. God still teaches the church. Don’t forget that little get together in Rome, vatican II.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you are the first protestant I have ever heard say they believe in the development of doctrine. I know that there is no unified voice to speak for all protestants, and some protestants probably still agree that birth control is wrong, but that was not the tone that I picked up when I was a protestant. And wouldnt you agree that morality is not subjective, something cannot be wrong on tuesday and then right on wednesday.

Still Vatican II didnt say that something that was previously a sin, is now not a sin. In fact Vatican II didnt change any doctrine of the Church. It was not a doctrinal council like Trent or Vatican I.
 
And wouldnt you agree that morality is not subjective, something cannot be wrong on tuesday and then right on wednesday.
Click to expand...
There’s a can of worms. If you don’t have subjective access to morals, then morality isn’t relevant to you as a being (think of the non-moral carnage of battlebots). That doesn’t mean that it can change on a whim or that it depends on someone’s opinion. I find the dichotomized language on morality, of subjectivity vs. objectivity and relativism vs. absolutism to be a weak and inadequate way to understand it.

Our moral expectations clearly change. No one’s going to stone their child after all for cursing them. But its not clear to me how relevant the currant topic is on that. You could cite the command to go multiply and fill the earth. Well, we’ve clearly already done both, and besides that, use of contraception wouldn’t prevent us from doing either.

But I clearly don’t think the morality on this has changed. Only our understanding of it has. We are finite and our understanding simply must continue to grow and develop.
It was not a doctrinal council like Trent or Vatican I.
Click to expand...
So even if one of my examples wasn’t that good, my point remains.
 
Honestly, you are the first protestant I have ever heard say they believe in the development of doctrine.
Click to expand...
Then I must be the first protestant you’ve met who takes Semper Reformanda seriously.
😉
 
geebob said:
Why not. The church’s understanding has always been developing and no responsible historian of theology could say otherwise. God still teaches the church. Don’t forget that little get together in Rome, vatican II.
Click to expand...
Catholics very often get slammed for mentioning development of doctrine or “understanding”.

Or we get the old “I know my church practices what the early Christians practiced.”

All in all, a pretty good post for Catholics!!
 
geebob said:
There’s a can of worms. If you don’t have subjective access to morals, then morality isn’t relevant to you as a being (think of the non-moral carnage of battlebots). That doesn’t mean that it can change on a whim or that it depends on someone’s opinion. I find the dichotomized language on morality, of subjectivity vs. objectivity and relativism vs. absolutism to be a weak and inadequate way to understand it.

Our moral expectations clearly change. No one’s going to stone their child after all for cursing them. But its not clear to me how relevant the currant topic is on that. You could cite the command to go multiply and fill the earth. Well, we’ve clearly already done both, and besides that, use of contraception wouldn’t prevent us from doing either.

But I clearly don’t think the morality on this has changed. Only our understanding of it has. We are finite and our understanding simply must continue to grow and develop.

So even if one of my examples wasn’t that good, my point remains.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that the morality regarding birth control changed for the majority of Protestant denominations in the 1930’s? What do you account for the shift?

I personally dont want to be a part of a church or denomination that is comfortable with saying that something that was deemed sinful for 400 years by every leader, teacher, minister, reformer and theologian is now not sinful and even encouraged and promoted as part of being a responsible person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top