Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

@Benedictus:

I feel it is better that I don’t respond point-by-point to your previous post…

I have no further purpose here.

That’s okay.

I pray that God lead you into His Church that you may know the fullness of His Truth.

Peace!

Cory

 

[Thoughtfulone]

And there is nowhere in Scripture that said that they would not have followed Him had one of his ancestors been evil. Not one teeny, weeny bit of indication.

Show me ONE place where I said that Jesus’ ancestors had to be impeccable or sinless…please stop implying that I did. We do not know what Er did to displease God, only that the Bible says he was wicked. Other actions in the Bible that use the word “wicked” are sodomy and the worship of other gods. Either way, God did not want Er to even continue to LIVE, much less to be a part of Jesus’ lineage. But, as I said, Judah was obviously God’s choice, being of pure blood and thus a part of the covenant line (hence “the tribe of Judah”)

Seriously Thoughfulone, you should have read that before you gave the citation. That was Joseph’s genealogy not Mary’s.

Do your homework:

Geneaology

"Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

It goes: When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,………… the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

You really are not getting this… The man is declared unclean whether he emits seed inside or outside of a woman. Don’t you get that? Wherever he emits seed, he is unclean. He is declared unclean for the simple fact of emitting seed

Yes, merely unclean, not worthy of death…levitical law (which would later come into play) is clear on this matter. Be it from intercourse, a nocturnal emission, masturbation, or coitus interruptus, a man is merely UNCLEAN, not UN-ALIVE

We are not discussing the woman we are discussing the man. Nice try at side-stepping the issue.

I am not sidestepping anything, merely showing how there are 2 reasons a man might be unclean, one where he emits seen INSIDE a woman, and one in which he doesn’t. Neither are worthy of death.

Considering that this is how Jews and Christians understood it, you obviously have not idea what is and is not laughable.

Actually, the original Jews who were a part of the covenant understood this to be an act of disobedience and deception, not a matter of simply ejaculating on the ground.

You see, you think of this as just coitus interruptus but God sees in this wilful disobedience. An enslavement to the pleasures of the flesh coupled with utter disregard for God’s will.

This was always never ever just a simple matter of spilling seed. This was always about the evil reality of contraception – a No to God.

I think this has essentially been proven to be wrong, so I won’t address this.

If it was just a case of Onan not wanting to give seed to his brother, then he could simply have refused to sleep with Tamar.

What, and disobey his dad and miss out on all the fun? Nope.

Nope. What I am saying is that Onan broke no Levitical laws and no law pertaining to the Decalogue so therefore this was not a case of disobedience to his father or a case of lying to Tamar.

This is more or less correct, although I’m sure being a rapist didn’t help his case with God. God got rid of him for reasons far deeper than disobedience or contraception.

Continued…

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Wrong again since protecting the covenant line is nowhere to be seen as an issue in either the OT or the NT. As I keep saying, t if all God wanted was to ensure the continuation of the covenant line He could have instructed Judah to give Shelah to Tamar.

First, the ENTIRE Old Testament is about protecting the covenant-line!!!

Second, God’s plan was for JUDAH and Tamar to continue the line…does the tribe of Judah ring a bell? You know, the tribe both Mary and Joseph came from? Judah and Tamar were both pure-blooded-Judah’s sons were not.

If all God wanted was to ensure that Tamar conceived, He could have given clear instruction to Judah or directly to Onan that Tamar must be made pregnant.

Since when does God do things exactly the way you think He should?

“Protecting the covenant line” is an invention of yours that no Church Father, no Doctor of the Church, no Saint, no Confessor has ever taught.

Um, it’s the whole purpose of the New Testament…God’s relationship with His chosen people and His direct intervention in their lives to bring about the birth of the Messiah. This is a constant teaching.

 

[Calliso]

By the way, I am not saying here that birth control (aside from NFP) is licit. The Catholic Church teaches that it is not, and although I may not like it or understand it, I obey the Church in this matter and my husband and I do NOT use ABC. In fact, I’m pregnant right now, so as you can see…no ABC here!

I just think that attributing this rule to the Onan story is ridiculous and that the evidence is simply not there. Let’s call it what it is and just say that there is no prohibition of contraception in the Bible but that based on Tradition, the Magisterium teaches that it is nevertheless evil. This is after all, the truth.

So I am curious why does the Catholic Church teach that artificial contraception is wrong then? And donlt get me wrong I am not one of those people who think that unless it is in the bible it could not possibly be a valid teaching. But I would have to agree with you… I have read arguments for the whole Onan story being about contraception and its sinfulness and it has never made any sense to me. It seems like some people are taking an interpretation based off incorrect facts like the idea that the mans seed is literally like little humans who are just waiting to grow and still using it today! We clearly know that fact is false now. Now one might say well well even though we know that fact is false now the Onan story is still about the evils of artifical contraception!! but I have yet to see any strong evidence heck I haven;t really seen much evidence at all for that interpretation! God is usually at least fairly clear about what is sin and what is not. If the Onan story is really supposed to show us that artifical contraception is evil then God was being pretty darn vague.

But anyway I guess what it comes down to is if it is not in the bible what teachings support the idea that artifical contraception is sinful? Why should protestants follow this teaching?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

And that is true, but the kind of thread that you are trying to use to pull the NT and OT is non-existent.

The OT is revealed in the NT and the NT is hidden in the OT but protecting the covenant line was never ever given as a reason for striking Er dead nor for striking Onan dead. This is a theological novum.

The OT must be INTERPRETED in light of the NT. As I’m sure you know, each and every prophecy or incident in the Bible is not re-explained later and put into context. This is not an outlandish interpretation, but a fairly obvious one once you realize the importance of the tribe of Judah in salvation history.
I don’t understand how you can read this story in this context and not see this as God intervening directly to prepare the way for His son Jesus Christ.

That anyone can read this and think it is about contraception is absolutely baffling.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

**First off, as I showed you above, the genealogy you gave was Joseph’s. **

Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, which makes her a member of the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah

Wrong, it is common knowledge that Mary and Joseph both are from the tribe of Judah:

This is from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, chapter 7
Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

“7 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the Law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.”

bibledb.com/EcclesiasticalHistory01.asp

Just with that point alone, this section of your post crumbles.

The idea that Mary is of David’s line came from the proto-evangelium of James but this is not a canonical book.

I am not arguing that contraception is right in this thread. I have admitted that it is a teaching I do not necessarily agree with or understand, but I do follow it nonetheless out of obedience. My issue is with the fact that people claim that the Onan story is about contraception when CLEARLY it is not. There is nothing about contraception in the Bible.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So I am curious why does the Catholic Church teach that artificial contraception is wrong then? And donlt get me wrong I am not one of those people who think that unless it is in the bible it could not possibly be a valid teaching. But I would have to agree with you… I have read arguments for the whole Onan story being about contraception and its sinfulness and it has never made any sense to me. It seems like some people are taking an interpretation based off incorrect facts like the idea that the mans seed is literally like little humans who are just waiting to grow and still using it today! We clearly know that fact is false now. Now one might say well well even though we know that fact is false now the Onan story is still about the evils of artifical contraception!! but I have yet to see any strong evidence heck I haven;t really seen much evidence at all for that interpretation! God is usually at least fairly clear about what is sin and what is not. If the Onan story is really supposed to show us that artifical contraception is evil then God was being pretty darn vague.

But anyway I guess what it comes down to is if it is not in the bible what teachings support the idea that artifical contraception is sinful? Why should protestants follow this teaching?

Well, I can’t speak for Protestants, but Catholics basically follow this teaching because the Jews before us believed contraception to be wrong and the early Christians apparently did as well. So we are following Tradition. Even the Catechism has buried the Onan argument pretty deep, as the vast majority of theologians no longer believe it to be a story about contraception.

 

[Calliso]

Well, I can’t speak for Protestants, but Catholics basically follow this teaching because the Jews before us believed contraception to be wrong and the early Christians apparently did as well. So we are following Tradition. Even the Catechism has buried the Onan argument pretty deep, as the vast majority of theologians no longer believe it to be a story about contraception.

Oh ok thanks for answering.

 

[copperblade]

And the purpose of a thing, the purpose of what something was created for is God’s will for that thing.

Right, but when people hear “thwart God’s will” there’s a tendency to think along the lines, “God might have wanted you to have a baby but you stopped Him.” And then they figure, “but God can do anything, so I can’t thwart His will,” and stop there.

That’s all I mean by “vague” is that it might lead to the wrong assumption.

 

[benedictus2]

Show me ONE place where I said that Jesus’ ancestors had to be impeccable or sinless…please stop implying that I did. We do not know what Er did to displease God, only that the Bible says he was wicked.

Exactly. And from that you concluded that he must have been killed to protect the covenant line without providing any support for this.

Other actions in the Bible that use the word “wicked” are sodomy and the worship of other gods.

And Solomon worshipped other Gods and yet he was not extracted from the line.

Either way, God did not want Er to even continue to LIVE, much less to be a part of Jesus’ lineage.

God did not want Er to continue to live but there is no support for the next part of your statement that He did this because He did not want Er to be part of Jesus’ lineage.

But, as I said, Judah was obviously God’s choice, being of pure blood and thus a part of the covenant line (hence “the tribe of Judah”)

And as I have said, if that was all God cared about He could have given Tamar straight to Judah instead of going the convoluted line.

Do your homework:

Geneaology

"Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.”

Top marks for attempting to do some homework but unfortunately said homework was extremely badly done.

Joseph was not son-in-law of Heli but rather son of Heli because of levirate marriage.

**Here’s the explanation in the DRB :
“Who was of Heli”… St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

So, how can this be the genealogy of Mary when all it talks about is Joseph.**

And really Throughtful one, Dr Morris is not a credible exegete. You should have checked that before using his conclusions in your post. He is putting words into the text that is not there.

The Church has never ever interpreted that text in that manner because it is **very clear that the lineage in both Luke and Matthew is of Joseph’s.
**

Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary,

And how did he come up with that conclusion? Where in the text or anywhere else in the Bible does it suddenly change to being Mary’s genealogy?

while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context.

No it isn’t because “son-in-law” means son by virtue of your daughter’s marriage. Joseph is not the son-in-law of Heli because Mary is not son of Heli.

**Mary IS NOT TO BE FOUND in any of that genealogy. **As I have said before, the only book that says that Mary is of the line of David is the non-canonical proto-evangalium of James.

Next time you use someone’s interpretation, please check his credibility as an exegete.

Yes, merely unclean, not worthy of death…levitical law (which would later come into play) is clear on this matter. Be it from intercourse, a nocturnal emission, masturbation, or coitus interruptus, a man is merely UNCLEAN, not UN-ALIVE

You are not following this are you? The levetical rule regarding emission of seed was not law then so does not apply.

One you start going along that line you will have to admit into your line of argument the levirate marriage rule as well.

I am not sidestepping anything, merely showing how there are 2 reasons a man might be unclean, one where he emits seen INSIDE a woman, and one in which he doesn’t. Neither are worthy of death.

Sorry but you can’t even follow your own line of reasoning.

Actually, the original Jews who were a part of the covenant understood this to be an act of disobedience and deception, not a matter of simply ejaculating on the ground.

Act of disobedience to what? What law was Onan disobeying since neither the Levirate Marriage rule was not law then.

Yes you are right it was an act of disobedience but not disobedience of Judah nor was it an act of deception of Tamar since as we have already established that did not apply then, so therefore the disobedience would have been an explicit rule that they all accepted at that time. And that rule could only be that if you lie with a woman you are not to contracept because God created sex for the purpose of pro-creation. This early in Biblical history, that was the only thing enforce at the time.

 

[benedictus2]

Thoughtfulone:
I think this has essentially been proven to be wrong, so I won’t address this. No it isn’t but there really is nothing that you can provide to support your conjecture so I understand.

What, and disobey his dad and miss out on all the fun? Nope.

Exactly! Yes, yes, yes. And miss all the fun.

To Onan this is just all about fun. Now we get right back on the track. Onan was using sex for the fun of it without the wanting the consequences! In short he was contracepting!

This is more or less correct, although I’m sure being a rapist didn’t help his case with God. God got rid of him for reasons far deeper than disobedience or contraception.

But he wasn’t a rapist. He didn’t rape Tamar. Tamar went willingly. So therefore your case collapses.

 

[benedictus2]

First, the ENTIRE Old Testament is about protecting the covenant-line!!!

You have been saying that ad nauseam with** zero, zilch, nada **support for it.

Second, God’s plan was for JUDAH and Tamar to continue the line…does the tribe of Judah ring a bell?

The tribe of Judah yes, but where does it say that IT HAD TO BE Tamar? And if it had to be Tamar and Judah why not just her and him straight away instead of doing this merry go round of marriages?

You know, the tribe both Mary and Joseph came from? Judah and Tamar were both pure-blooded-Judah’s sons were not.

Yes, Joseph but not Mary. Try to get better sources next time.

Since when does God do things exactly the way you think He should?

Never. He is God. But you seem to think that the way you think He should is the way God acted.
God’s actions is not in question here. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION of what God’s action meant that is in question. That is the one that is incredibly flawed.

Um, it’s the whole purpose of the New Testament…

Nope. The whole purpose of the NT is the establishment of the covenant not the protection of the covenant line.

God’s relationship with His chosen people and His direct intervention in their lives to bring about the birth of the Messiah. This is a constant teaching.

That one you got right. That is about the covenant but not about “protecting the covenant line.”

God is not bound to a covenant line, He bound Himself to the covenant.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7737873
​

 

[sidbrown]

What percentage of Catholic married women and of Catholic single adult women are taking the birth control pill? And what percentage of Catholic adults believe that artificial contraception is permitted in marriage?
From the surveys that I have seen, there is no significant difference between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to women using birth control or women having an abortion.
Yes, the offical Catholic teaching may be different, but if it has no effect one way or the other on the sin being committed, then what?

 

[benedictus2]

What percentage of Catholic married women and of Catholic single adult women are taking the birth control pill? And what percentage of Catholic adults believe that artificial contraception is permitted in marriage?
From the surveys that I have seen, there is no significant difference between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to women using birth control or women having an abortion.
Yes, the offical Catholic teaching may be different, but if it has no effect one way or the other on the sin being committed, then what?

What percentage of Catholics and what percentage of Protestants commit adultery, don’t go to Mass, cheat, lie?

Obviously it has not effect one way or the other in the sin being committed. Perhaps then we should say that adultery, murder, not going to Mass, cheating and lying should be permitted.

Let’s take a vote and let’s pass this bill.

 

[benedictus2]

It seems like some people are taking an interpretation based off incorrect facts like the idea that the mans seed is literally like little humans who are just waiting to grow and still using it today!

You are giving a stupid answer and ascribing that as the rational for the Church’s understanding.

That is not quite why Onanism is considered a sin. Onanism is a sin because it is No to God. The spilling of the seed is secondary for after all men have nocturnal emissions and that could hardly be called sinful.

Onan’s sin was contraception. It is not just a matter of seed spilling. That is one thing that people have to understand before they reduce Onan’s evil act to just seed emission.

 

[sidbrown]

What percentage of Catholics and what percentage of Protestants commit adultery, don’t go to Mass, cheat, lie?

Obviously it has not effect one way or the other in the sin being committed. Perhaps then we should say that adultery, murder, not going to Mass, cheating and lying should be permitted.

Let’s take a vote and let’s pass this bill.

The problem with your analysis is that Protestants are not required to go to Catholic Sunday Mass. For example, Baptists might go to a Sunday Bible reading and prayer service, but not to Mass, so there is no sense in faulting them for not following the Roman Catholic requirement of going to Sunday Mass.

 

[sidbrown]

You are giving a stupid answer and ascribing that as the rational for the Church’s understanding.

That is not quite why Onanism is considered a sin. Onanism is a sin because it is No to God. The spilling of the seed is secondary for after all men have nocturnal emissions and that could hardly be called sinful.

Onan’s sin was contraception. It is not just a matter of seed spilling. That is one thing that people have to understand before they reduce Onan’s evil act to just seed emission.

There seems to be some disagreement as to the exact nature of the sin of Onan. People interpret it differently.

 

[benedictus2]

The OT must be INTERPRETED in light of the NT. As I’m sure you know, each and every prophecy or incident in the Bible is not re-explained later and put into context. This is not an outlandish interpretation, but a fairly obvious one once you realize the importance of the tribe of Judah in salvation history.

It is, for the simple reason that no Church doctrine or teaching or exegesis has ever given this theological novum that you are now foisting on us.

Again, almost everything in the OT is done to preserve and protect the covenant line. If you read the Bible from beginning to end, you will see that almost every single time God personally intervenes in someone’s life, it is to protect and preserve His chosen people for the coming of their Messiah. He doesn’t just show up because He’s pissed, kill someone, and then leave. If He did, we should all be frigging terrified.

And as I have said before you, have said that ad nauseam with zero, zilch, nada support.
God intervenes yes, but your explanation for that intervention is the one that is profoundly flawed.

Again, this is the entire purpose of the OT, protecting and preparing the Jewish people for the coming of their Messiah.

Again no support forthcoming just re-statements of the same flawed understanding.

None of Judah’s sons were of pure blood because Judah was married to a Canaanite woman. To start this tribe and this line, you need 2 pure-blooded Jews, Tamar and Judah.

And as I have said before, if that is all that is needed then why go through this convoluted scenario and just take Tamar for himself.

I don’t know…why didn’t God just make it easier for everyone and specifically tell each and every person personally what He wanted them to do instead of letting the Jews in the OT fail and endanger themselves and damn near become extinct again and again? He obviously had a plan…I think it went rather well, don’t you?

Exactly! So therefore the logic of your “protecting the covenant line” fails.
So now your entire argument fails because :

• You have not provided support for your assertions
• The logic that governs your scenario does not pass muster.

This was obviously His plan from the beginning. God wanted Jesus to come from this line and He made it happen. I even cited the prophecy that stated it from the Old Testament - Genesis 49:10 “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.” End of story. This is not that complicated.

No it is not complicated if you stick to the facts and to the teachings of the Church. All your citations only prove that Jesus was to come from that line. But it does not say that the reason for striking Onan and Er dead was to protect that line.

So many posts later and you have not provide one single credible proof for that conclusion.

I don’t understand how you can read this story in this context and not see this as God intervening directly to prepare the way for His son Jesus Christ.

For the simple reason that the Church does not either. Even Protestants would not come up with your conclusions.

You said you read this somewhere, well then if you can provide the source of that ridiculous exegesis then we can perhaps better address the question. But so far, it does not hold water.

That anyone can read this and think it is about contraception is absolutely baffling.

Considering that the Church has always seen it this way, then you are saying that the Church must be short of intelligence and insight as compared to you. That is the one that is baffling. No, not just baffling. Downright idiotic and arrogant to boot.

 

[jovnyc]

I dunno. It sounds like sexual assault to me since the only reason that Tamar is sleeping with him is for the express purpose of a child. For no other reason. They aren’t married. There is no bonding to take place within a marriage bed. In fact, their sex wouldn’t even be licit if it weren’t to further the line. She was willing to have sex only in order to have a child. Nothing more. If there had been turkey basters in their day…

To be honest, this story reminds me more of Ananias and Sapphira. To recap their story, they sold land and told Peter that they were donating all of the money when that was an untruth. He reproaches them by telling them that it was their land and their money and that they didn’t have to give it. However, by their lie, they weren’t lying to men but to God. And then they were struck dead.

Onan’s sin seems very similar. He did not have to raise up a child for his brother. His seed was his. However, he said that he would yet held back at the crucial moment. Onan, like Ananias and Sapphira, thought he was deceiving Tamar and Judah but he was really deceiving God. And was consequently struck dead.

But that’s just my opinion. I never got the Onan connection. I am practicing NFP although I’m ambivalent about the teaching, for the record. And also for the record, I grew up in Evangelical circles where everyone was very prolife (I would never attend a church that wasn’t) and contraception wasn’t discussed. By prolife, I mean preaching consistently on it, running crisis pregnancy centers, refusing to vote for politicians that weren’t pro life. In word and deed. So I do believe that it is possible to be both prolife and use contraception. It never occurred to me to connect the two.

 

[benedictus2]

The problem with your analysis is that Protestants are not required to go to Catholic Sunday Mass. For example, Baptists might go to a Sunday Bible reading and prayer service, but not to Mass, so there is no sense in faulting them for not following the Roman Catholic requirement of going to Sunday Mass.

Okay, cut that part out of the list.

Shall we now have a vote on murder, adultery, cheating and lying?

All in favour say aye.