Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[Augustus24]

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!!

Indeed, I have been participating in internet apologetics debates for over 3 years, first as a protestant, now as a Catholic. And protestants who subscribe to the development of doctrine are rare indeed. Most believe that they are practicing the Christianity of the Apostles, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[geebob]

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

getting off topic, but there’s a lot to be said for progress that is in terms of simply recovering a more ancient or original understanding that has been lost to to piling up traditions or has been obscured merely in the transmission of a concept to a different culture where the cultural difference isn’t accounted for, two areas where modern biblical scholarship has been enlightening.

I don’t think that’s the only way which progress should be recognized, but it is definitely a significant portion.

 

[geebob]

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?

First of all, let me say that I’ll grant that this may be true, yet it’s not clear to me that all denominations have an official statement on contraceptives to begin with, or one that goes back before that period.

I don’t really know what would cause a shift except that improving contraceptive technology would’ve pushed the issue to the forefront and would’ve caused an occasion to examine the issue more carefully.

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.

I can’t say that I see the wisdom in the refusal to scrutinize everything, even with the risk that what was once held might be reversed. To scrutinize doctrines is just a matter of respect for them, even if that scrutiny does entail a risk. If change in and of itself doesn’t have intrinsic value, neither does stasis. And it’s just a fallacy to think that just because no ones questioned a doctrine, that means its right.

 

[AdamC]

I think that ANY form of contraception, including NFP, should be disallowed if the intention of the people using it is to avoid having children altogether. If the contraceptive method is used to “space out” pregnancies, then I don’t see a problem.

Condoms themselves are not a bad thing.

The spiritual/psychological intimacy of sex is very important, and opportunities to express love for your spouse should not be ignored just because it’s not the right time of month, or because you’re worried about finances.

Yes, God will provide, but he also provided us with reason. The intention behind contraception is the problem, not the contraceptive device itself. If condoms are about “playing God” and breaking the first commandment, so is NFP. The point behind both is to restrict pregnancy, and “disallow” the creation of life.

The Church’s stance on contraception is as incomplete as its stance on suicide was, which has been updated in the wake of psychological advancements since the enlightenment.

 

[copperblade]

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.

To be a Christian you have to be open to some change. I was just discussing with my wife the passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which have a long list of laws (this is where most of the conservative sex stuff comes from anyway, including homosexuality). I pointed out how in Leviticus God prescribes a punishment of death for dishonoring your parents along with a punishment of death for prostitution, whereas Jesus comes later and overturns this. No wonder the Jews couldn’t accept.

[The “turn the other cheek” response to “eye for an eye” is a bit different because it occurs in Deuteronomy which is arguably “Moses’ law” instead of “God’s law.”]

One of the themes in the Bible seems to be to focus on the spirit of the law, not the letter.

 

[copperblade]

I think that ANY form of contraception, including NFP, should be disallowed if the intention of the people using it is to avoid having children altogether. If the contraceptive method is used to “space out” pregnancies, then I don’t see a problem.

I agree to the extent that how you are preventing pregnancy itself doesn’t matter, and to the extent that it should require a marriage to be open to new life. However, not all contraceptives are the same–some have a chance (admittedly an extremely small chance) to abort a fertilized egg. I think in that case, the ban on contraception should stand.

 

[mark_a]

there’s a lot to be said for progress that is in terms of simply recovering a more ancient or original understanding that has been lost to to piling up traditions or has been obscured merely in the transmission of a concept to a different culture where the cultural difference isn’t accounted for, two areas where modern biblical scholarship has been enlightening.

such as?

 

[geebob]

such as?

The new perspective on Paul brings greater understanding to Paul’s faith/works dichotomy and it resulted from digging deep into ancient Judaism.

I also think of a movement called open theism which makes us aware of the greek influence on theology, criticizes it on key grounds with regard to God’s personhood even though many proponents of the open view note that greek philosophy did have it’s advantages.

 

[benedictus2]

I am getting hopelessly confused. How is this not thwarting God’s will just as much as a condom?

james

I am the one confused. How can you be both Christian and Deist?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

There is a big difference because God provided you with the means by making the woman infertile at certain times in the month.

During the fertile times, you are actually abstaining from from sex so there is a sacrifice involved.

My question to you is, if you think they are the same then how come you are not practicing NFP?

 

[confusedius]

My question to you is, if you think they are the same then how come you are not practicing NFP?

This is a serious question?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Quite the contrary. The Catholic view sees marital sexual relations as good. No one is stopping one from enjoying it. But it does have the possible consequence of children. And this you must be open to.

Sexual intercourse isn’t even necessarily reproductive

That is true. But that should be up to God to decide not to you.

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.

That’s not even in the least bit similar. When we say one should be open to life, we mean that it should be open to life where life is possible.

That is a stupid argument because you are implying that infertile people should not even think of getting married because they are not open to life. Ludicrous.

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.

The difference being that we use the God given cycle of infertility and we abstain from sex when fertile.

You see there is a major difference there altogether. The selfishness of wanting pleasure at all times and not wanting the possible result of a child. If you want sex at all times, then you have to be open to the possibility that a child may result depending on God’s will.

God made sex.

Indeed He did.

It is good

No doubt.

and he didn’t make it necessarily and intrinsically connected with actual reproduction. [/qutoe]
Yes He did. Read the Bible.

That either happens or it doesn’t

According to His pleasure if you do not put a stop to it.

and that doesn’t reduce the value of sex as an intense bonding experience in the slightest.

Sex’s value is not just for the "intense’ bonding experience. Sex is the means buy which God creates eternal souls.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a serious question?

Very.

Once you start thinking about it, you will know why. So start mulling that one over.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

I think you will find this two links helpful.

The first is Humanae Vitae, the Pope’s encyclical and the the second assesses it

Humanae Vitae On the Regulation of Human Births - Papal Encyclicals

To the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to Priests.

www.papalencyclicals.net

goodmorals.org/smith6.htm

 

[benedictus2]

I think that ANY form of contraception, including NFP, should be disallowed if the intention of the people using it is to avoid having children altogether. If the contraceptive method is used to “space out” pregnancies, then I don’t see a problem.

Spacing out pregnancies is preventing children.

Condoms themselves are not a bad thing.

No their not. It’s only when you use them contraception that morality creeps in.

The spiritual/psychological intimacy of sex is very important,

True but it is not THE MOST important.

and opportunities to express love for your spouse should not be ignored just

So there are no other ways to express your love except to have sex?

because it’s not the right time of month, or because you’re worried about finances.

Again, so there is no other way to express your love except to have sex?

Yes, God will provide,

But you doubt it right? Maybe He will give you too many you can’t handle so you better take matters into your own hands because you can’t trust God to mess the number of children up…

But then if you can’t trust God with that, can you really trust God at all?

but he also provided us with reason.

Which is not suppose to contravene the Divine Reason.

The intention behind contraception is the problem, not the contraceptive device itself.

Well duh, you employ the conraceptive device because your intention, that being to avoid a pesky human being from coming from this “expression of love”

If condoms are about “playing God” and breaking the first commandment, so is NFP.

How is that so considering that you are actually abstaining from sex? You are actually making a sacrifice on those times when the woman is infertile which happens to be God cycle?

The point behind both is to restrict pregnancy, and “disallow” the creation of life.

True. That is why NFP is not to be used as contraception without grave reason - say the wife is ill.

But there is a major difference because when you employ ABC, you are actually you go ahead with the sexual gratification at what ever time suits you and you put a barrier to God.

I’ve asked this of another poster before. If NFP is truly the same as ABC then how can you are not going by NFP?

Give that a throrugj thinking.

The Church’s stance on contraception is as incomplete as its stance on suicide was, which has been updated in the wake of psychological advancements since the enlightenment.

Actually it is the most enlightened, most reasonable stand.

All Christians until 1930 have all condemned contraception.

And I wouldn’t invoke the “enlightenment” period because so much bad philosophy came out of that one too. A lot of very un Christian philosophies.

The only true enlightenment is the enlightenment that comes from God.

Didn’t you say you were a Christian?

 

[benedictus2]

To be a Christian you have to be open to some change.

What sort of change? Change is not to be embraced for change’s sake.
Some changes are quite terribly bad.

I was just discussing with my wife the passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which have a long list of laws (this is where most of the conservative sex stuff comes from anyway, including homosexuality). I pointed out how in Leviticus God prescribes a punishment of death for dishonoring your parents along with a punishment of death for prostitution, whereas Jesus comes later and overturns this. No wonder the Jews couldn’t accept.

The punishment may have changed but they did not cease to be sins.

What did Jesus say to the adulterous woman. Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

The whole point of Jesus Christ is to call us out of our self-centredness our our enslavement to sin. He did not say that sins are no longer sins so go ahead and enjoy yourself.

One of the themes in the Bible seems to be to focus on the spirit of the law, not the letter.

But the Spirit of the Law has to be based on the letter of the law. As Pope Benedict said: It is the spirit of the letter.

If you think that Christ has come with an I’m Okay you’re okay kind of spirituality then think again.

Instead of saying sticking to the letter of the law regarding adultery He says, if you look at a woman with lust you have already committed adultery. If you marry a divorced man/woman you commit adultery.

If anything the law became harder.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

This part of your post I think is very good.

But for those folks with irregular untrustworthy cycles I think personal circumstances and concience must be a judge.

This part is not.

One can fool onself that one’s conscience is saying something is right when it is wrong.
This happens when a conscience is badly developed.

Something that is intrinsically evil cannot be left to conscience because it has already been determined to be evil.

One does not say if your conscience says it is okay to kill then you should kill.

It is very important to form a good conscience first.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Good word choice. We are only stewards, caretakers of our bodies. The way we take care of it has to be in line with the its Creator what He intended for it.

We can still decide to use NFP or abstain from sex.

And there you got it. We can abstain from sex. God has not problem with that. God actually recommended it (if you read Paul).

Even deciding who to marry or whether to marry or not

Yes, God gave us free will.

is part of the participation in deciding what humans come into existence.

Nope. Usually, the decision to not marry if God has a say about it is a call from God. A call to be exclusively belong to Him.

That has not thing to do with whether humans come into existence of not.

If that’s too godlike for some, tough beans.

Only because you misunderstood the original post.

We are made in the image of God and that carries weight even in this matter.

Yes we are but we are not God so should not usurp the prerogative of deciding who will and will not be born.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Nope. Not backward. That would be devolution not evolution.

What is intrinsically evil is is intrinsically evil. So called enlightenment does not make it suddenly good.

Pope Paul VI was actually quite prophetic.

A contraceptive mentality leads to a culture of death.

Take this absurd stand for exampe " I am against abortion but pro contraception".

Since almost 100% of those who abort were all contracepting, if each time you still conceive despite your best efforts at contraception, what will you do? Will you have all these children that are somehow conceived? I doubt it very much. You will go to the murder factory for babies because you have already determine that you will have children at this time and this spacing and these number only and how dare God will otherwise.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

There was no ambiguity. A straight translation exhibits no ambguity. It is only the liberal translation that does.

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.

The traditionalists may reject Vatican II but they are on the wrong because Vatican II is a church council.

That said, they are also correct that one cannot just use NFP to contracept for the sake of limiting the number of children without grave reason.

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

Whoever said that the marital act is a sin? You are making things up.
No one ever said that.

What we are saying is what you are doing to stop that act from bringing life is the sin. If you left it at sacred loving act minus the contraption that would have been fine. Then it is a truly sacred loving act. Otherwise it is just lust and self gratification.

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.

And Christ is still the Christ who came to liberate us from Sin. He did not come to say that what was once sin is no longer a sin.

If anything, His moral teachings are harder to follow that a strict following of the letter of the law.

And further more, Christ is still Christ who established the Cahtolic Church.

No change in dogma? I’ve been told that before vatican II, the catholic church was restrictivist and post vatican II, it is inclusivistic.

Whatever do you mean by that?

What I suggest is your read Vatican II because many attribute things to VII that VII nowhere said.

Don’t see how a view about who goes to hell and who doesn’t wouldn’t be a dogmatic shift.

What do you mean by that?