Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[PbloPicasso]

And you must realize that there are a lot of people out there who just are not convinced that it’s ALWAYS intrinsically evil. And many of us are well-educated and catechized.

Apparently, I do not.

 

[Izdaari]

Defend it? Whatever for? It’s not under attack. I’m not aware of anyone outside of the Catholic Church who’s against it. Neither my present church, nor any of the other churches I’ve ever attended (ranging from Baptist to Disciples of Christ to Lutheran to Anglican to mainstream Pentecostal) teach against it. Nor am I aware of anything in the Bible against it.

I understand that the Catholic Church has developed some theology against it, which doesn’t make sense to me. But then, very little of the Catholic “theology of the body” has ever made sense to me. I have read at least major portions of the Catholic Catechism, and I agree with the vast majority of it. That’s just one of the areas I can’t agree on, and one of the things that continues to divide Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.

 

[SemperReformada]

I have to agree that this thread just screams baiting. I’m Catholic, but if I were Protestant, my answer would be “why should I?”

If you’re trying to convert someone, then maybe you should state why you believe ABC is wrong, instead of challenging someone. If you’re not trying to convert, and you’re just curious, maybe you should say so. Just saying.

And for the record, there is no way any one can tell me that NFP is not birth control. It’s not open to life if your specifically planning around the possibility of conception. Using any method other than blind faith is, to some extent or another, birth control. And NFP is very accurate, which would lead you to believe that it’s a very effective form of birth control.

I’m Protestant and yes, this thread does scream “baiting”.

There are a couple of issues that I have with the OP.

First, I betcha the vast majority of Catholic couples, at least here in the US, use contraception. Why disdain Protestants as if we are the only folks who use contraception? If you are shocked or offended at the Protestant use of contraception and you are Catholic, I suggest you clean up your own backyard first.

Second, NFP is a form of birth control. While it doesn’t use a barrier it’s not open to life either.

Thirdly, since there is no prohibition against using birth control in the vast majority of Protestant churches…why not use it?

 

[Bluegoat]

I’ll be honest… when I see posts like this, I think the person must be undersexed. You REALLY don’t understand why it’s so hard? You have the love of your life living with you, sleeping in the bed next to you. You find this person extremely desirable. Making love is mutually pleasurable and strengthens your emotional bond to one another. Some Catholic commentators have gone so far as to call marital sexual intercourse a renewal of the marriage vows and of their sacrament each time it happens. You see the love of your life in various states of undress during the day, say, showering for work, or exercising, or changing into pajamas. So, you are faced with seeing this person you love, every day, desiring them, wanting the closeness that comes from marital love, being affected by your own natural desires and hormonal cycles that constitute sex drive. And your answer is to live in daily torture, in close proximity to your lover, the person you desire, your only moral sexual outlet, yet unable to enjoy them. You really can’t see the spiritual and emotional damage that will come from that?! You really can’t understand how that will damage the marriage?

Maybe I am oversexed, but I could not live like that. I am Catholic by the way, though some would throw me out of the Church because I failed to live up to the standard…

Isn’t it lucky that you live in a time when reliable contraception is available! Do you think that in the old days, people were more able to abstain?

 

[thecatholicamer]

I one huge thing that is being missed in this discussion is the love. Sexual relations is about love and not about lust. Yes I can say this because I am married and yes I do have children. We are a society that is collapsing in many ways. Our morality is up to a vote of the public opinion instead of the ultimate Truth. Again when you take God out of your marriage all you have is flesh left. Just as St. Paul says, flesh is weak but the spirit is strong. If you want a great view of what human sexuality is suppose to be instead of what it has become read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul the Great. We need to stop taking and start giving. We are over run with pornography that is poisoning our young men and yes I can say this because it affect me for most of my life before Christ found me and brought me to the Church. With this grave sin our men are being taught what women “should” be according to society. If we are truly Christians, and I am saying this to everyone of us Catholic and Protestant, we need to follow the example of Christ and not our own selfish wants. We forget that God knows us better than ourselves.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not Protestant, not anything, in fact.
However.
First, I am speaking for myself, no one else. I feel that every person has a right to pratice BC (or not) as they see fit, and I do not have any right to inflict my viewpoint on anyone else…

Personally, I see a embryo/fetus as a ***pontential ***life, until it can survive outside the womb. Mind, the time frame is becoming shorter and shorter all the time…but-anyhow. Personally, I would never abort a child from MY womb, unless my life was in immediate danger. However, that’s ME. I would never interfere with someone else’s choice to do what they see fit.

So, that being said, I see nothing wrong with using condoms, a diaphragm, foam, and the pill…all are blocking possible conception, and not destroying a zygote when sperm meets egg and cell division begins. I couldn’t use an IUD, as it stops the division of cells as they make thier way to the uterus via the Fallopian tubes…and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Just my thoughts, FWIW…

Point of reference: Some forms of the “pill” cause early embryonic death through failure of implantation.

 

[inocente]

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

A better title for a thread might be “Catholics: defend your use of artificial contraception” given that a sizable proportion don’t appear to agree that it’s wrong.

Arguments for condoms include reducing the potential for abortions, helping to prevent the spread of diseases, improving marriage by reducing anxiety about conceiving, promoting personal liberty and equality of women, and so on. They are common sense while arguments against can be darned complicated. Why should we have to trundle through Aquinas and then agree that sex is purely about procreation when Paul says otherwise (1 Cor 7)? Why should ABC automatically lead to promiscuity when most people aren’t fixated on sex? In what way is it any more anti-life than abstinence?

Maybe someone can explain, or at least why you said that ABC has led to a “huge pornography industry” (think about that one first )

 

[Brian_C]

As a convert to Catholicism, Catholic moral theology makes perfect sense to me and I cannot fathom there being another viewpoint. However, as a Baptist, I can’t honestly remember anyone ever telling me that birth control of any sort was wrong. And I was raised in a VERY conservative Southern Baptist church. So, I have to wonder- if more protestants knew…?

 

[JohnnyReb]

My one (name removed by moderator)ut on the comparison to NFP and contraception is a bit warped. They both yes are too avoid pregnancy but the big difference is the how and why. With NFP there is always the possibility, with no barrier, of the formation of life, if God wills it. With contraception we have the complete removal of this union and in sense taking God out and putting ourselves into this position. You must remember contraception is intrinsically evil and can NEVER be a good thing. This is the teaching of the Church.

They always taught us in sex ed the only 100 percent effective contraception was abstainance. Even physical barriers are not guarenteed to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I know of one woman who got pregnant recent while using ABC. If that reasoning of the church follows the idea that there can never be contraception with the use of ABC, the church would be wrong.

 

[JohnnyReb]

A better title for a thread might be “Catholics: defend your use of artificial contraception” given that a sizable proportion don’t appear to agree that it’s wrong.

Arguments for condoms include reducing the potential for abortions, helping to prevent the spread of diseases, improving marriage by reducing anxiety about conceiving, promoting personal liberty and equality of women, and so on. They are common sense while arguments against can be darned complicated. Why should we have to trundle through Aquinas and then agree that sex is purely about procreation when Paul says otherwise (1 Cor 7)? Why should ABC automatically lead to promiscuity when most people aren’t fixated on sex? In what way is it any more anti-life than abstinence?

Maybe someone can explain, or at least why you said that ABC has led to a “huge pornography industry” (think about that one first )

Well I just want to say there. The Catholic church believes that marriage and sex are primarily about procreation. Like you point out, Paul says differently in 1 Corinthians. All of Catholic teaching against ABC is rooted in their beliefs about the purpose of marriage and sex.

 

[TimothyH]

And you must realize that there are a lot of people out there who just are not convinced that it’s ALWAYS intrinsically evil. And many of us are well-educated and catechized.

We do realize that you are not convinced. I would suggest however, that Catholics who are not convinced that artificial means of contraception are gave sins may not be as “Well-educated and catechized” as they think.

I suggest these read some of the work on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body by Christopher West. ***Theology of the Body Made Simple ***is an excellent book at less than ten dollars.

The fact that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ - and therefor by God himself - as the authority on earth to interpret sacred scripture and tradition and to teach on matters of faith and morals based on that interpretation should be enough. The fact that the Catholic Church is God’s chosen means to communicate his will to mortal man should be enough for every Catholic to take it on faith, and thn try to understand it only after they accept it on faith.

But people nowadays don’t want faith. People want understanding. They say, “Explain it to me and then will I believe it.” These make the same mistake that the disciples made in John 6:66 when they found Jesus’ saying too hard to accept.

The truth is that the Catholic Church has very clean and compelling biblical, moral, theological basis’ for teaching that artivicial means of contraception are grave sins. Most people have never taken the time to properly educate themselves, or simply don’t want to hear it. If you do make the attempt to understand the teaching, I promise that you will find it one of the most beautiful teachings of the Church and one of the greatest gifts from God.

I’ve made a poor attempt to write about the in terms of the pro-life movement at timhollingworth.blogspot.com/2010/07/widespread-acceptance-and-use-of.html.

-Tim-

 

[onenow1]

Point of reference: Some forms of the “pill” cause early embryonic death through failure of implantation.

Truth can understand error, but error cannot understand truth." — G.K. Chesterton

God Bless

 

[inocente]

I’ve made a poor attempt to write about the in terms of the pro-life movement at timhollingworth.blogspot.com/2010/07/widespread-acceptance-and-use-of.html.

I read your blog. Your writing is fine but sorry I don’t understand your arguments at all.

You say that contraception is abortion, but the words mean different things - contraception prevents pregnancy while abortion ends an existing pregnancy, and it can be argued that contraception reduces abortions.

Then the idea that man brings the sperm, woman the egg and God the soul requires that conception occurs during intercourse. Without getting into semantics about conception, a condom prevents it and so no soul is created in the first place.

Why are love and enjoyment of sex mutually exclusive? I mean sure, don’t treat anyone else as an object, but what has that to do with a condom?

Then the story of Onan. It’s tangential at best and if we no longer accept a tradition of a man producing offspring by his deceased brother’s widow, why accept the rest? It’s not even as though the widow appeared to have been given any choice in the deed . The story may be metaphorical in any event.

And yes of course children are a blessing but we can still be fruitful without being irresponsible.

This is the problem with arguments against contraception. They seem to demand special pleading and are exceptionally difficult to understand or accept unquestioningly. Sorry and all that Tim.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

I’ll be honest… when I see posts like this, I think the person must be undersexed. You REALLY don’t understand why it’s so hard? You have the love of your life living with you, sleeping in the bed next to you. You find this person extremely desirable. Making love is mutually pleasurable and strengthens your emotional bond to one another. Some Catholic commentators have gone so far as to call marital sexual intercourse a renewal of the marriage vows and of their sacrament each time it happens. You see the love of your life in various states of undress during the day, say, showering for work, or exercising, or changing into pajamas. So, you are faced with seeing this person you love, every day, desiring them, wanting the closeness that comes from marital love, being affected by your own natural desires and hormonal cycles that constitute sex drive. And your answer is to live in daily torture, in close proximity to your lover, the person you desire, your only moral sexual outlet, yet unable to enjoy them. You really can’t see the spiritual and emotional damage that will come from that?! You really can’t understand how that will damage the marriage?

Maybe I am oversexed, but I could not live like that. I am Catholic by the way, though some would throw me out of the Church because I failed to live up to the standard…

I really don’t understand why it’s so hard. I do think it’s a renewal of the marriage vows and it strengthens the emotional bond. But I don’t see self-denial as torture and if it’s not a good time for intimacy, why can’t people just find something else to do or think about? Why would it be spiritually or emotionally damaging to a relationship if a couple mutually agrees to abstain from intimacy for a certain period of time?

I do object to your assessment that I am undersexed. It is easy for me to practice self-restraint in regards to intimacy because my husband and I aren’t ready to have another child now and we don’t want to use birth control or sterilize ourselves.

I am not implying that people who use birth control are over-sexed or should be thrown out of the Church, either. If the Church starts throwing people out for failing to be perfect then I would be thrown out too. I am not criticizing you, but seeking to understand. Why do some people say they can’t live without sexual gratification? Logically speaking, of course we can. And we should be able to live happily even sexual intimacy is lacking.

 

[DickVanDyke]

It’s not JUST sexual gratification! Marital sex is the ultimate expression of our love for each other. It is the most powerful way to nurture our bond. It makes us feel connected to each other in a way nothing else does. Personally, I am sick of so many anti-ABC people equating sex to only the physical sensation. I ask you, who is the one using the other person? The one who sees marital sex as an expression of love and bonding they cannot live without, or the person who sees it merely as physical release of sexual tension and denigrates others’ need for it on that basis? If, God forbid, one of us sustained some horrible disease or injury, of course we would have to learn to live without it or with less. But that is completely different.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

and it can be argued that contraception reduces abortions.

It’s true that anyone can argue about anything even if the argument has no basis in fact.

The mere idea that contraception reduces abortions is ironic because the statistics reflect another reality. The reality is that once contraception became widely used, the numbers of women seeking abortions skyrocketed.

What does the data show.

The NY Times wrote an article in 1989 - 16 years after abortion became legal on the federal level - is titled “Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions” nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html

The question is: Then what is behind the 99% of all Abortions?

The answer is: Both contraception “failure” and 46% of women who have abortions used it as their birth control method for the month leading up to their pregnancy according to Contracept.org: contracept.org/abortifacient.php.

Doing the math, of the 100% of women having abortions:
53% are using abortion because their artificial birth control “failed”
46% are using abortion as their only birth control
1% are using abortion because they were raped or an incest victim

Interestingly, Abortions were not widely used nor legal until about a decade following the introduction of oral contraceptives in the 1960s. sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090114092848.htm

It appears that in 1968 Humane Vitae’s predictions were accurate. vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[ScapularDude]

I’m 25 and getting married in January. I still believe in the Catholic Church’s position on contraception no matter how archaic it seems. Her fertility is so special and I won’t wear a condom or have her consume a pill (that increases risk of cervical cancer, BTW I study medical sciences) or wear an IUD so that I can have sex. Even with NFP, I must man up and wait until she is physically available IF we chose to delay having children.

Also, most Christians held contraception to at least be more wrong (than they do now) before the Lambeth Conference of the 1930’s.

It seems like our Protestant brothers and sisters can only agree on things like Christ and His dying and rising from the dead. This is good, very good. But, I just don’t think Christ would purposely leave behind a loose collection of denominations that can’t agree on essential moral issues. Either He approves of contaception or not.

Thank you everyone, especially non-Catholic Christians for your responses. For those that do contracept, I’m confident you discern for yourselves what is and is not abuse thereof.

 

[Reuben_J]

This thread is about Protestants allowing the use of artificial contraception. Well, not all Protestants do of course. The title of the thread is admittedly sounded baiting but we can still be objective about it. Not all argument have to be about bickering.There have been many wonderful posts from Catholics and they are appreciated.

I would love to hear about the justification or simple reason why artificial contraception is allowed in some Protestants circle. If anything, it will be for the sake of knowing what they think about this subject.

 

[Reuben_J]

Then the idea that man brings the sperm, woman the egg and God the soul requires that conception occurs during intercourse. Without getting into semantics about conception, a condom prevents it and so no soul is created in the first place.

Why are love and enjoyment of sex mutually exclusive? I mean sure, don’t treat anyone else as an object, but what has that to do with a condom?

Then the story of Onan. It’s tangential at best and if we no longer accept a tradition of a man producing offspring by his deceased brother’s widow, why accept the rest? It’s not even as though the widow appeared to have been given any choice in the deed . The story may be metaphorical in any event.

And yes of course children are a blessing but we can still be fruitful without being irresponsible.

This is the problem with arguments against contraception. They seem to demand special pleading and are exceptionally difficult to understand or accept unquestioningly. Sorry and all that Tim.

Well, maybe here is one.

Do you believe that sex should be uniative and procreative in marriage? How about the command in Gen 1:28 to be fertile and multiply? Condom is an antithesis to these as it stops procreation and leave sex only just for pleasure – the other aspect of its purpose (procreation), it is not opened to.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I read your blog. Your writing is fine but sorry I don’t understand your arguments at all.

You say that contraception is abortion, but the words mean different things - contraception prevents pregnancy while abortion ends an existing pregnancy, and it can be argued that contraception reduces abortions.

Then the idea that man brings the sperm, woman the egg and God the soul requires that conception occurs during intercourse. Without getting into semantics about conception, a condom prevents it and so no soul is created in the first place.

Why are love and enjoyment of sex mutually exclusive? I mean sure, don’t treat anyone else as an object, but what has that to do with a condom?

Then the story of Onan. It’s tangential at best and if we no longer accept a tradition of a man producing offspring by his deceased brother’s widow, why accept the rest? It’s not even as though the widow appeared to have been given any choice in the deed . The story may be metaphorical in any event.

And yes of course children are a blessing but we can still be fruitful without being irresponsible.

This is the problem with arguments against contraception. They seem to demand special pleading and are exceptionally difficult to understand or accept unquestioningly. Sorry and all that Tim.

Have you ever heard the term “reducing”? It sounds positive in context to potential medical problems. Reduction is the process of aborting children during the in vetro fertilization process. This is only one term that clearly gives a false representation of what is really taking place. So it is very important to research topics before just going with the flow.

Another seemingly positive thing is organ doner, because it saves lives. But what they don’t clearly tell you is that they have to harvest major organs while the person is still alive. I just recently learned this and made them take off organ donor from my drivers license. Not out of fear but from participating in another major sin called murder.

Having sex for fun is irresponsible when the proper use of it is not held to biblical standards. We reject God and His ability to create life through us. It is the sin of pride and a very selfish act for pure pleasure. True love is sacrificial giving, not taking.

I suggest you study Judaism to come to an better understanding of why they also are not allowed to use such barriers. Catholicism is a direct linage to Judaism and holds fast to the teachings and traditins pass on to us 2 Thes. 2:15.