Where in the Bible does Christ forbid contraception?

[davidv]

I have been fruitful and multiplied, but, does the church and or God expect my wife and I to field our own baseball team? Responcible birth controle does not seem unreasonable to me. I agree that many uses of contraception, like anything else can be misused. If you all don’t mind I’d like to open this topic up a little by asking, are Priests in violation of the “be fruitful and multiply” comand by being unmarried and chaste? Paul’s opinion on this kind of life seems directly opposed to Gods comand. Not a critisism, but an honest question. I have all of the respect in the world for good priests.

Paul also reminds us that as a part of the Body of Christ, we each have a role to play. Each role is dependent on certain conditions. One condition defined for the ministerial priesthood, generally, is one of celibacy. God’s command to be fruitful is not made in isolation, as this fruitfulness is to occur in the context of marriage. Not all are called to be married. Therefore not all are to commanded to reproduce.

 

[MonFrere]

Thanks to everyone for your help in my discussions with our son.

For those who have not read all the threads, our adult son no longer believes in God. I am open to more comments! God bless you for your help!

Maybe your son would be helped by an apologetic written by Dinesh D’ Souza – What’s So Great About Christianity. It was written to counterbalance the spat of books that promote atheism by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the like. It’s priced at $18,45 at Amazon.com. I’ve heard D’ Souza on EWTN and he writes columns published by Townhall.com (conservative website) and I find his work to be very helpful even though some of his ideas which are very Catholic in orientation are not always appreciated by all at Townhall.

MonFrere

 

[peso73]

I think using the Onan reference is COMPLETELY offbase, and interpreting scripture to back one’s doctrine, Onan spilled his seed upon the ground , yeah, 'cos he didn’t want to make babies with his brother’s wife, but not just ‘cos he didn’t want babies. He was struck down because he defied God’s direct command, c’mon folks…the other scriptural references are better, but the ultimate answer is the church gave us the bible, not the other way around, and Christ gave His church His authority (which is specifically in the bible), and so what the apostles sucessors, (our bishops, united) say, we are obliged to follow when related to faith and morals…so…Jesus didn’t need to forbid contraception in the Bible. Oh yeah, I was an adult son who was not an athiest, but agnostic, and I HIGHLY recommend C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity…after I read it I couldn’t be one anymore …

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I think using the Onan reference is COMPLETELY offbase…

The article from Catholic Answers, entitled “Birth Control,” [catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp]](http://www.catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp]) states:

"The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

"The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

“Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.”

FOLLOWING is another analysis of Genesis:

Gen. 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to see his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10 What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

One apologist writes: “The above text has been used by a united Christianity down through the centuries to show that acts of contraception are immoral. That is because Onan had sex with his wife, Tamar, and did not want to raise the children for his brother, who had died. He had sex but contracepted the act. There are no doubt varying things that Onan did that was wrong, but a united Christianity has always taught that the principle act that caused Onan’s death was this contraceptive act: Have sex and avoid the consequences. Once Protestantism discarded the 1900 years of Christian teaching against contraception, starting with the Lambeth Conference by the Anglicans in 1930, then alternative explanations had to begin to be manufactured to say, ‘well this has nothing to do with birth control.’ There are tons of not only Church Fathers and Catholic theologians, but even Protestants who for 400 years, saw in this act a condemnation by Scripture of birth control.”

Taken from an excellent Christian analysis on the Internet [Birth Control and Genesis 38]](Birth Control and Genesis 38]), is this statement:

"There are many biblical reasons that undergird the issue of teaching against Contraception from the Bible. I briefly borrow this from Provan’s book, with the Biblical documentation to be found in his book already mentioned. (To see the succinct Biblical reasons against birth control, one needs to purchase this book These principles are here: (Provan, The Bible and Birth Control), pp. 5-31)

1. The command to be fruitful and multiply 2) Children are always seen as a blessing, and never seen as a nuisance, as all the birth control advocates proclaim 3) Childlessness is portrayed as an unfortunate thing 4) Death penalties given for sexual offenses that are barren 5) Castration is seen as a blemish 6) Seed as semen or children 7) Shows the natural function of women.

These principles are all Biblical and miligate against birth control. The Onan incident fleshes it out."

Judie Brown

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I think using the Onan reference is COMPLETELY offbase…

THE SIN OF ONAN

By MARK BRUMLEY

This Rock
Volume 2, Number 2
July 1991

WHAT DOES the Bible say about contraception? “Nothing!” reply many today–including some Catholic theologians and biblical scholars. Yet traditional manuals of moral theology cite Genesis 38:6-10 as an argument against contraception. Does this passage have anything to offer on the question? Let’s look at the text:

"Judah got a wife named Tamar for his firstborn, Er. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, greatly offended the Lord, so the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.’

“Onan, however, knew that the descendents would not be counted as his; so, whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too.”

Onan was supposed to marry his deceased brother’s childless widow. This practice, known as the Levirate law (from the Latin levir, meaning “a husband’s brother”), was required by the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10) and was intended to insure an unmarried brother would “raise up seed for the deceased brother that his name be not blotted out of Israel.”

The argument against contraception, specifically coitus interruptus, based on this passage used to be considered straightforward. In recent years, both Protestant and Catholic commentators have downplayed, if not outright rejected, the anti-contraception interpretation of this text. Their argument goes like this: Onan’s sin consisted solely in his abandonment of his familial obligations to his dead brother. Onan performed the act which bears his name because the child which might have resulted would have been counted as his brother’s, rather than his own–something Onan found intolerable.

The difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’” (Deut. 25:9).

While such a punishment might be embarrassing, it falls short of the death sentence Onan received for his act. This suggests he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

John Kippley, in Covenant, Christ and Contraception (New York: Alba House, 1970, page 19), explains it this way:

“Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act but refused to accept the consequences. He withdrew in order that the act could carry no reproductive consequences . . . [H]e went through the motions of the Levirate covenant, but he denied the reality of that covenant.”

Catholic teaching regards marriage as a covenant which has as one of its constituent elements an openness to new life and the procreative good. Sexual intercourse involves a renewal of the marriage covenant. Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it acts directly against procreation, one of the basic goods of marriage.

By acting contraceptively, Onan robbed sexual intercourse of its life-giving meaning and acted against the good of his potential offspring’s life. Both his intent and his concrete actions were against life. As a result, Onan received the Old Testament penalty for his crime.

 

[peso73]

“Sword Brethern” ~ Well, what can I say,
Thanks, very informative!

 

[doglover]

Thank you! That is a good explanation that I can discuss with our son!

 

[holy_wood]

Few realize it today, but before 1930 all Christian churches opposed contraception as an unnatural and thus impermissible interference with God’s design for human sexuality.

That changed when, at their 1930 Lambeth Conference, Anglicans began permitting the use of contraception on a limited basis; other denominations quickly absorbed the secular sexual morality that flooded into the Protestant world. Today no Protestant church maintains the historic Christian faith on this issue. Only the Catholic Church has stood firm and resisted the onslaught of secularism in sexual ethics.

Things grew so bad in the Protestant world that by the early 1970s some Evangelical leaders were advocating not only contraception, but even abortion. At that time abortion and contraception were viewed as “Catholic” issues. When abortion was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, these Evangelicals rethought the issue and became firmly prolife.

In recent years, as the prolife mindset has grown strong in Evangelical circles, some are even reconsidering the issue of contraception and are rejecting the contraceptive mindset. In doing so, they are returning to the historic position of Christianity and the position of their own Protestant forebears. In this column we look at what historic Protestants—those prior to the twentieth-century—had to say on the subject. Next time we’ll look at more recent Protestants.

MARTIN LUTHER
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF LUTHERANISM)

“[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him” (Commentary on Genesis).

JOHN CALVIN
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF CALVINISM)

“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring” (Commentary on Genesis).

LUKAS OSIANDER
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY LUTHERAN)

“[Onan’s contraceptive act] was an abhorrent thing and worse than adultery. Such an evil deed strives against nature, and those who do it will not possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10). The holier marriage is, the less will those remain unpunished who live in it in a wicked and unfitting way so that, in addition to it, they practice their private acts of villainy” (Commentary on Genesis).

JAMES USSHER
(SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ANGLICAN BISHOP)

“How doth a man exercise uncleanness in [the sexual] act? Either by himself or with others. How by himself? By the horrible sin of Onan (Gen. 38:9), lustful dreams and nocturnal pollutions . . . arising from excessive eating and unclean cogitations or other sinful means” (On the Seventh Commandment).

SYNOD OF DORT
(SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY CALVINIST COUNCIL)

“[Onan’s contraceptive act] was even as much as if he had, in a manner, pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb and destroyed it” (Dutch Annotations on the Whole Bible, authorized by Dort).

COTTON MATHER
(SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY PURITAN)

“It is time for me to tell you that the crime against which I warn you is that self-pollution, which, from the name of the only person that stands forever stigmatized for it in our Holy Bible, bears the name of ‘onanism’” (The Pure Nazirite).

JOHN WESLEY
(EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF METHODISM)

“Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of the brother that was gone, refused to raise of seed to his brother. Those sins that dishonor the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord and destroy their own souls” (Commentary on Genesis).

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704word.asp

 

[rpp]

One question that Doglover asked was when did the Church first start teaching against contraception.

Some will say Humane Vitae in 1969.

That would be quite incorrect.

From the Birth Control article on the Catholic Answers website I found this.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

{snip}

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

This artcle had already been linked to but it is certainly worth the read!

As you can see, the proscription against artificial birth control and abortion goes back to the very founding of the Church.

 

[MonFrere]

Earlier in the thread the case of Onan was presented by a catholic apologist that demonstrated that contraception was wrong.

Then more recently we have some of the ECF writing against contraception. However, some of this thought came through non-Christian natural law theorists.

My question is what is the Jewish view of contraception. What was the climate in the centuries before Christ concerning contraception?

That would help me understand this topic more accurately.

MonFrere

 

[holy_wood]

Earlier in the thread the case of Onan was presented by a catholic apologist that demonstrated that contraception was wrong.

Then more recently we have some of the ECF writing against contraception. However, some of this thought came through non-Christian natural law theorists.

My question is what is the Jewish view of contraception. What was the climate in the centuries before Christ concerning contraception?

That would help me understand this topic more accurately.

MonFrere

Orthodox Judaism

Among traditional interpretations of the Torah, active prevention of pregnancy is in violation of the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22). Some Rabbinic authorities further consider the possibility (generally not accepted) that a union that by definition cannot lead to pregnancy would amount to “spilling seed”, the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:9).

The option of contraception is raised by the Talmud (tractate Yevamot 12b), where the use of a pessary is discussed for women who are too young to get pregnant, presently pregnant, or nursing. In each case either the woman or her child is at risk for serious complications, and this is the basis for many rabbinic authorities permitting contraception in situations where pregnancy would seriously harm the woman. In those cases, the most “natural” method is preferred; as the use of a condom or pessary creates a physical barrier, “the pill” (or an intrauterine device) is preferred by most authorities. Fertility awareness methods (modern improvements over the Rhythm Method) are difficult to use, because many infertile days coincide with the ritually impure days of niddah. Orthodox rabbis believe that the positive commandment of being fruitful and multiplying is a male obligation. Consequently, wives may choose abstinence as birth control, but husbands are not permitted to decline their wives if they are not in niddah.

Contraceptive measures that lead to sterility, especially male sterility (e.g. through vasectomy), are problematic, and a sterilized man may have to separate from his wife (based on Deuteronomy 23:1).

When Orthodox Jewish couples contemplate the use of contraceptives, they generally consult a rabbi who evaluates the need for the intervention and which method is preferable from a halachic point of view.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_contraception

 

[Ignatius]

Our adult son wants to know where in the Bible that Christ taught that contraception is immoral.

The Catholic Church rejects the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.