Where do we get the idea that contraception is bad?

[CatholicRaven]

Just wanted to point out that, for some, cheesecake is just as “necessary” as sex is for personal survival (and vice versa).

Please continue with your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[SonOfMan]

Just wanted to point out that, for some, cheesecake is just as “necessary” as sex is for personal survival (and vice versa). .

I agree, and yet Catholics dont have a problem with cheesecake. Double standard.

 

[Joe_5859]

Its a good thing to live one’s life based on the 10 Commandments, right? Or are God’s commandments incomplete, since he didnt foresee the advancements in contraception that we have today? (Although him not being able to foresee would cancel out his Omnipresence and Omnisciene, or would seem to indicate the Commandments were created by humans who couldn’t foresee).

I’m not sure what your point is here. Contraception falls under the sixth commandment, which covers morality surrounding marriage and sexuality.

The Bible isn’t about giving an exhaustive laundry list of every conceivable thing we shouldn’t do. That isn’t reasonable to expect, nor is it even prudent for the Bible to include such a list. Such a list would be near infinitely long.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Jesus Christ never condemned it, so where do we get the idea that its sinful?

SonOfMan: How do you know Jesus never condemned it? He more than likely did as he “…privately to his own disciples he explained everything” (Mk 4:34) which means that most of his teachings are not found in the written word of God but all are found in the oral word of God, which is the Gospel He commanded the Apostles to go out and preach (Mk 15: 15-16). This Gospel is the Catholic faith and is handed down by tradition, i.e., by means other than writing, also known as Apostolic Tradition.

And since the Catholic faith has been preached from Pentecost Sunday till today and since all manner of extra-marital sex, including contraception, has been taught as sinful (we even have written evidence from the 1st century – Letter of Barnabas) from early on, the Apostles learned it either directly from Jesus or from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as the Catechism teaches). Jesus was extremely concerned with purity as He was Purity and he knew the misery, unhappiness, sickness and even premature death that would befall men and women who would engage in illicit sex. If He taught it was wrong for men to even look at a woman lustfully odds are he also explained in great detail to the Apostles, when explaining the 6th commandment, the proper and improper use of sex also.

We know the Apostles and their successors preached this because the Church Fathers’ writings are all in agreement on the evil of illicit sex, including contraception. The Church Fathers didn’t make up Tradition but they learned it from the Apostles and their successor Popes and bishops who were in union with the Popes. Contraception is harmful to married couples as the general divorce rate is upwards of 33% while those who practice natural family planning have a divorce rate of less than 5%, one study reflects .02%. Practicing contraception tends to weaken spousal love which, for many, results in the high divorce rate where NFP brings couples closer together. This, and its life preventing consequence, is why Jesus condemned it.

 

[CatholicRaven]

I agree, and yet Catholics dont have a problem with cheesecake. Double standard.

Catholics don’t have a problem with sex, either.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Pornography has such a broad meaning, I am sure there was porn in Jesus’ day, like watching people have sex live.

Really? Live sex shows? You’re sure about that?

However, this all falls under “porneia” (i believe the word pornography comes from it, and Jesus gave that as a reason to divorce. So, he didnt approve of porneia.

Ah, young padawan learner. I was once as ignorant about this as you are. I asked about this very question in this Forum, some five years ago.

Respected Forum Member “Third Day” instructed me in the way of the Jedi. TD showed me (and, now, you) that “porneia” certainly referred to incest, and not just any sort of sexual deviancy.

But, no such disproval of anything related to contraception.

Well, other than Onan getting struck DEAD after practicing the ONLY form of “contraception” known to ancient people.

Keep in mind as a side thought, using the “There was no (fill in the blank) in Jesus’ day, so he couldnt explicitly condemn it)” card will not work, because Jesus was supposed to know everything (which would include him being able to foresee the existence of porn and modern day contraception) since he is claimed to be God. Jesus’ teachings are alleged to be for all time and for all people not just the ancient people, so he should have clarified such things that he foresaw, like the controversy surrounding contraception, to the broader audiences that were to come in the future, so that there would be no confusion.

Well, that would be ONE way to do it. Teach about everything that would ever come up. And teach it so plainly that it could never possibly be misinterpreted. And hope that somebody wrote down all of those teachings accurately (despite the fact that Jesus never told anybody to write anything). And hope that such writings survive, perfectly intact, for the rest of humanity’s existence.

There’s ANOTHER way to do it. Empower humans to teach under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, when stuff comes up, there would be a visible and authoritative entity (on earth) to teach about it. And, when further questions come up, that same human authority could answer those questions. And this would happen under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus COULD have taught about everything that would ever come up. But did he actually do that? Did Jesus EVER teach about ANYTHING that was completely unknown to his audience? Did he EVER teach about genetic engineering, or IVF, or anything else that was completely unknown in his day?

Or, did Jesus actually establish a Church which was empowered with the authority to teach in his name?

He could do either.

 

[zz912]

I’m not committing any sin. I’m married.

You are committing sinful acts if you are using contraception. I don’t know about your personal culpability for those sinful actions, but you are committing sinful actions.

 

[zz912]

Lola Maria wrote that some people might feel pregnancy was worse than disease, that a pregnancy could be unwanted. You wrote that all consequences of sin were unwanted. But not all pregnancies are the result of sin, so your statement is false.

Contraception is wrong; but the reason is not because it helps people avoid the consequences of their sins.

No, my statement is completely accurate. We are discussing why contraception is wrong, and the statement I was responding to was referencing people wanting to avoid pregnancy by using contraception.

I wasn’t commenting on pregnancies outside that discussion point.

And my comment holds true for virtually all sin (all that I can think of). Sin harms us, in many many ways. And everyone who commits sin wishes to avoid the consequences of sin.

 

[zz912]

It seems that very many people use this way to justify their sins.

I was deluding myself about this for some time until I stepped back and realized the the pride that I was bathing in. One must realize that to submit to God’s will with humility is the critical step before anything will change in their lives.

 

[Loly_Maria]

You are committing sinful acts if you are using contraception. I don’t know about your personal culpability for those sinful actions, but you are committing sinful actions.

My post was about unwanted pregnancy, and you said that the ‘natural consequences of sin are unwanted’, which suggests that the sin was fornication.

Contraception does not lead to any unwanted consequences for me; the consequence that it leads to is avoiding pregnancy, which is exactly what I want.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There were a range of potions, suppositories and abotifacents [sic; abortifacients] known in ancient times.

Yes, there were abortifacients, of varying degrees of effectiveness (ancient medicine was more quackery than actual science). But even these abortifacients were considered medically immoral. The Hippocratic Oath, the most ancient known standard of ethical behavior for doctors, condemned such treatments:

Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

So, yes, there were abortifacients, but they were considered immoral even by pagans.

There was nothing in ancient medicine that could compare with our modern idea of contraception (something intended to prevent conception in the first place). There might have been potions or talismans or incantations or whatever, but none of that actually worked.

 

[SonOfMan]

Catholics don’t have a problem with sex, either.

They certainly have a problem with a married couple engaging in contraceptive sex.

 

[SonOfMan]

Respected Forum Member “Third Day” instructed me in the way of the Jedi. TD showed me (and, now, you) that “porneia” certainly referred to incest, and not just any sort of sexual deviancy.

I am under the impression that certain incestual relationships are given dispensations to marry by a Bishop in the Catholic Church. Why would they OK something that Jesus never approved?

Well, other than Onan getting struck DEAD after practicing the ONLY form of “contraception” known to ancient people.

He was struck dead for not impregnating his sister in law. We are not under the same obligation as Onan to impregnate Onan’s sister in law, nor would it be possible.

Well, that would be ONE way to do it. Teach about everything that would ever come up. And teach it so plainly that it could never possibly be misinterpreted. And hope that somebody wrote down all of those teachings accurately (despite the fact that Jesus never told anybody to write anything). And hope that such writings survive, perfectly intact, for the rest of humanity’s existence.

I am certain that you are mistaken here, as Jesus asks John the apostle to write down everything he saw and heard in The Revelation.

There’s ANOTHER way to do it. Empower humans to teach under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, when stuff comes up, there would be a visible and authoritative entity (on earth) to teach about it. And, when further questions come up, that same human authority could answer those questions. And this would happen under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Humans are too unreliable and inconsistent to be left with such a task. It makes much more sense that God himself would have given a list, or even better, check in with us ever century to make sure we still understand.

Jesus COULD have taught about everything that would ever come up. But did he actually do that? Did Jesus EVER teach about ANYTHING that was completely unknown to his audience? Did he EVER teach about genetic engineering, or IVF, or anything else that was completely unknown in his day?

This argument doesnt work because the Catholic Church claims that we too, are apart of Jesus’ audience. So yes, he should have taught about all future sinful technologies to encompass all audiences from every era.

Unless we’re not Jesus’ audience and none of this applies to us.

 

[SonOfMan]

I’m not sure what your point is here. Contraception falls under the sixth commandment, which covers morality surrounding marriage and sexuality.

The 6th Commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” How is wearing a condom during sex murder?

The Bible isn’t about giving an exhaustive laundry list of every conceivable thing we shouldn’t do. That isn’t reasonable to expect, nor is it even prudent for the Bible to include such a list. Such a list would be near infinitely long.

You mean the same Bible that took the time to create an exhaustive laundry list of foods to condemn, such as eating pork and shellfish and other nitpick rules, but never took the time to just add in one more important rule about contracepion being bad?

 

[SonOfMan]

SonOfMan: How do you know Jesus never condemned it? He more than likely did as he “…privately to his own disciples he explained everything” (Mk 4:34) which means that most of his teachings are not found in the written word of God but all are found in the oral word of God, which is the Gospel He commanded the Apostles to go out and preach (Mk 15: 15-16). This Gospel is the Catholic faith and is handed down by tradition, i.e., by means other than writing, also known as Apostolic Tradition.

Without proof, anyone can say anything. By the same token, how do you know that he didnt give his approval of it in private?

Regardless, they never wrote it down, so it must not have been that important.

 

[nodito]

The 6th Commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” How is wearing a condom during sex murder?

In the Catholic tradition, the sixth commandment is “Thou shall not commit adultery” which the Church understands to cover all aspects of sexual morality.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

Without proof, anyone can say anything. By the same token, how do you know that he didnt give his approval of it in private?

Regardless, they never wrote it down, so it must not have been that important.

SonOfMan: Keep in mind that the Catholic Church does not come from the bible. The bible is salvation history, i.e., it illustrates how God has intervened in history to save man from his sins and its attendant misery and unhappiness. The Catholic Church is founded on the Apostles and the Gospel they preached which they learned directly from Jesus with assistance from the Holy Spirit after the Ascension. Nowhere does any book of the bible claim to have this Gospel. Even if it did the Apostles began preaching in 33AD, which was about 360 yrs before the Church decided upon the canon of the bible. So obviously the bible could not have been the source of the Gospel as thousands upon thousands of Catholics had lived and died, many as martyrs, long before anyone knew what all the books of the bible were. The four gospels are narratives of the life of Jesus as written by the four authors under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Nowhere do they claim, nor does the Church teach, that only the most important things taught by Jesus are to found in the four gospels. As the bible itself says Jesus explained everything to them in private so that on Pentecost Sunday they would have the basics of the Gospel, the Catholic faith which they could then preach to the world. The written word of God and the oral word of God, i.e., Apostolic Tradition, are distinct. All of the teachings of Jesus are found in Tradition and some of these teachings are nourished and supported by scripture.

 

[Abu]

SonOfMan #94
Without proof, anyone can say anything. By the same token, how do you know that he didnt give his approval of it in private?
Regardless, they never wrote it down, so it must not have been that important.

It‘s no mere “idea”, it is a fact that contraception is gravely sinful. Factually God slew Onan because of it as you have been shown. That fact is very clear from this:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, *Encyclical on Christian Marriage, *Casti Connubii *(31 December 1930)].

It’s very foolish to try to deny it.

Because, The DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception which were common in the surrounding pagan world, as excommunicable offences. The Fathers of the Church who addressed these issues “universally applied Gal 5:20, and Rev 21:8 and 22:15 in their condemnation of these practices.” These included Justin Martyr, Origen, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine. (* Trial, Tribulation and Triumph*, Desmond A Birch, Queenship Publishing, 1996, p 334).

 

[edlinked]

I believe we get the idea that contraception is bad from the Holy Spirit.

“The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.” John 14, 26-29

For you to try so hard to protect that contraception can’t be bad doesn’t ring you a bell? At the end of the day what is important is your interiority, this knows what really is going on (to some sense).

The point is the fact that, that’s the problem of pleasure, you always will want more. How do you get to lust, to gluttony, etc.

That’s why the approach is, what I am protecting when I defend contraception? Do I really think I am protecting the person? But, wouldn’t protecting one or the other go against each other at some point? Who will have priority?

 

[SonOfMan]

Because, The DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) **condemned both abortion and contraception which were common in the surrounding pagan world, as excommunicable offences. The Fathers of the Church who addressed these issues “universally applied Gal 5:20, and Rev 21:8 and 22:15 in their condemnation of these practices.” These included Justin Martyr, Origen, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine. ( Trial, Tribulation and Triumph, Desmond A Birch, Queenship Publishing, 1996, p 334).

DavidFilmer says there was no such thing as contraception during that time, which is why Jesus didnt speak to it. So, was it around or not? These conflicting statements give one the impression of distorting the facts to fit with ones argument.