How do pro-abortion Christians reconcile their views with pro-life scripture?

justinangel said:

Chapter and verse, please. Though I never said it doesn't. The Trinity is implicitly revealed in the Hebrew OT - not explicitly. The apostles and the early Church discerned this truth not by proof-texting the Hebrew Scriptures, but by the declaration of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), and only then did they see what was hidden in the OT. But they didn't fully understand it as it has become defined by the Church. The theology of the Trinity has developed over time, and a great stride was made by Tertullian in the 4th century. The doctrine of the Trinity first belonged to the sacred Tradition of the Church (the unwritten word of God) before it was mentioned in the NT, but only implicitly. Now that you know about the Trinity through Catholic Tradition, it's easy for you to say that this doctrine is explicitly there in Scripture. I'm afraid you're arguing from hindsight bias.


Show me where! I'm not interested in what you wish to believe.



Of course I won't find that she isn't the Queen of Heaven, because she is. If Mary is just an ordinary woman, then she must have had just an ordinary son. I kindly invite you to visit my website. This thread is about abortion, so I have nothing more to say here.
Upon Thy Right Doth Stand the Queen in Gold of Ophir




If you want a Catholic answer, try doing some research online or go to your nearest public library. I recommend you read The Biblical Roots of the Mass, by Thomas J Nash, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, by Brant Pitre, and The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist, by John Salza - unless you're afraid to. But I doubt you'll find these books at a public library.

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John (See Chapter 6), and this is what he writes c. A.D. 110.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
Epistle to the Smyraens, 8




Weren't the so-called Protestant reformers fallible men? They certainly couldn't agree with each other with the same book in their hands, and so started their own sects. Aren't you fallible? How do you know with absolute certainty that God's word isn't in fact what you make it out to be, so it's no longer God's word - but yours? And may I remind you that Christ founded his Church on Peter and the Apostles. He did not write the Bible and then ask his disciples to hand out copies at street corners so that every person may decide for himself what it is that God has revealed. The authority to interpret the Scriptures lies with the divinely constituted Magisterium of the Catholic Church in harmony with sacred Tradition. If you want to debate this, then start a thread. But the topic here is on abortion. Spare us the proselytizing! Scripture Catholic - The Church

Click to expand...

As my granddaughter says, "whatever!". You can believe whatever man-made doctrines that you want; they're the foundation of the Catholic church. This includes the topic of abortion. There is no prohibition of abortion in the Bible (both testaments). In fact, it's not even mentioned anywhere.

justinangel said:

Abortion is implicitly condemned in sacred Scripture. Those who have or even condone abortions are at enmity with God. The Hebrew word for enmity in the OT is ebah: being "opposed" or "hostile" to God.

Click to expand...

"implicit" huh? plenty of people disagree. Interesting you leave out all the bits where the Bible literally commands infanticide, abortion, and directly states that causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder.

I am one who has spoken out in this thread against making abortion a governmental issue, although I am against abortion. To me, abortion is strictly and properly a moral issue for the Church. I think it is a slippery slope to want .gov to promulgate laws reflecting the dominant religious values of a nation. Today Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, but it may not always be that way. If Islam surpasses Christianity in number, do we want Sharia Law to be legislated as the law of the land because Muslim voters want it? What if Judaism would become the dominant religion? Would we be okay if .gov legislates Jewish dietary laws, Sabbath law, or circumcision because Jewish voters want it?

It is a slippery slope I would rather not go down. Personally, I think it is best to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. I want to live in a free country.

I always wonder what makes one a pro abortion Christian.

It is possible to be pro-choice (including the choice to have an abortion where it is legal to do so) and explain to people that, as a Christian, you do not view it as a choice at all.

My faith means I make certain choices, and I will share my reasons for making those choices. My faith does not mean I have to stomp all over everyone else.

Armoured said:

"implicit" huh? plenty of people disagree. Interesting you leave out all the bits where the Bible literally commands infanticide, abortion, and directly states that causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder.

Click to expand...

Where are those verses?

Cruse said:

I always wonder what makes one a pro abortion Christian.

It is possible to be pro-choice (including the choice to have an abortion where it is legal to do so) and explain to people that, as a Christian, you do not view it as a choice at all.

My faith means I make certain choices, and I will share my reasons for making those choices. My faith does not mean I have to stomp all over everyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't know any pro-abortion Christians (or non-believers for that matter). I and other believers are pro-choice, meaning it is up to a woman to decide, not the government. It is the so-called "pro-life" people that are doing the stomping, judging others and trying to get repressive laws passed that are founded on ignorance.

pescador said:

Where are those verses?

Click to expand...

Abortion:

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children.

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”.


2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life.


Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

The murdering of children:

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.” To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God’s commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.) At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one.

I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates.

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife.

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

Armoured said:

"You shall not use potions", huh?

Click to expand...

Yup. The Greek word used in the New Testament is 'pharmakia'. Lots of ancient pharmaceuticals were for abortion or contraception, and the Church opposed such pharmaceuticals, though not all medicines, from the beginning. One of those 'potions' being crocodile dung, a somehow favorite Egyptian contraceptive.

chevyontheriver said:

Yup. The Greek word used in the New Testament is 'pharmakia'. Lots of ancient pharmaceuticals were for abortion or contraception, and the Church opposed such pharmaceuticals, though not all medicines, from the beginning. One of those 'potions' being crocodile dung, a somehow favorite Egyptian contraceptive.

Click to expand...

You're reading into the text things that are not there.

chevyontheriver said:

Yup. The Greek word used in the New Testament is 'pharmakia'. Lots of ancient pharmaceuticals were for abortion or contraception, and the Church opposed such pharmaceuticals, though not all medicines, from the beginning. One of those 'potions' being crocodile dung, a somehow favorite Egyptian contraceptive.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the early church father's condemnation isn't the whole story?

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You are mixing up abortion with contraception. Try to stay on subject here. Onan was refusing a duty here, that was his sin.

Click to expand...

First, I’m aware that Onan’s act was contraceptive in nature, but abortion is no different from contraception in principle. Both acts violate natural law and impede the procreation of human life. Both acts are contra-life. “Contraception signifies only the prevention of conception, but the contraceptive act seeks to impede the beginning of the life of a possible person. The distinction is only conceptual, but we think it is important, for the explicit reference to new life calls attention to the fact that contraception is a contra-life act” (The Teaching of "Humanae Vitae": A Defense, by John C. Ford. S.J., Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988, p.35). The implication is that “wasting one’s seed” is as detestable to God as abortion is, since both acts thwart His will. Fertility is a gift from God for begetting offspring. This gift mustn’t be withheld or abused.

Second, God slew Onan for what he did (“spill his seed”) not for what he didn’t do (“provide offspring for his brother”). If indeed God punished Onan merely for “refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother,” it is very unlikely that the “crass physical details” of his contraceptive act would have been spelled out in the text. Scripture is restrained in its descriptions of married intercourse (Gen. 6: 4; II Sam. 16: 22; I Chron. 23: 7 . . . Gen. 4: 17; Luke 1: 34). When it uses explicit language, “the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts.” (The Teaching of Humane Vitae: A Defense). Moreover, If Onan was slain by God simply for his refusal to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, his death sentence would not have been in accord with Mosaic law. The penalty for refusing to marry the widow of one’s brother to carry on the family lineage was being taken and slapped in the face with a sandal and spit upon (Deut. 25.5–10). So, in Onan’s case, the death penalty was applied because of how he refused to beget offspring for his brother. What he essentially did by his immoral gesture was defy God’s will in the most practical way that he could, that is by wasting his sperm so that he could not produce offspring for his brother as God willed. I doubt God would have slain him just by refusing to marry and lay with Tamar. Onan’s offense was moral and not legal in nature. It was what he actually did in his refusal (spilling his sperm on the ground) that was “displeasing in the sight of the Lord.” A slap in the face, so to speak.

In the words of Catholic apologist David Armstrong: “The text describes Onan's sin as a positive action (‘he did a detestable thing’). Coming directly after the author has mentioned what is certainly an outward act (i.e., "spilling the seed"), these words in v. 10 plainly indicate a causal link between that sexual act as such and the wrath and punishment of God.” Onan was punished for a sin of commission, not a sin of omission, as 20th century liberal Jewish and Christian exegetes would like us to believe. We should note that ancient Jewish culture abhorred another form of “wasting the seed” – sodomy and homosexuality, even prescribing the death penalty for it (Leviticus 20:13). In ancient Israel, the death penalty was applied only in moral cases which included idolatry, blasphemy, profaning the Sabbath, and even publicly dishonouring one’s parents, provided one wasn’t ignorant of the law or made a mistake of fact, as with adultery. Not even the Levitical sacrificial lambs could expiate these unpardonable sins. The Mishna gives a list of persons who should be stoned for a dozen of immoral offenses, including perverted sexual ones like having sexual intercourse with one’s parent and with animals (Sanhedrin Chapter 7, p. 53a [1]). Of course, private masturbation isn’t included, but Onan wasn’t condemned to death simply for masturbating, but for masturbating as a show of blatant defiance of God’s will, that he produces offspring for his deceased brother. Any deliberate contra-life act stands opposed to God’s will.

You are mixing up the action and the reward of the action. The "no miscarriage" wasn't the action that got rewarded, it WAS the reward.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that I meant women were rewarded for having miscarriages? Obviously, miscarriages were beyond their control unless they caused them by natural pharmaceutical means. But I’m not arguing that. My point is that fertility is a blessing from God, a temporal reward for abiding by His will. The Bible does mention miscarriages in the context of blessings and curses upon Israel. In Exodus 23:26. God promises Israel that “none will miscarry or be barren in your land” if they follow the Mosaic Covenant. The implication is that God is the ultimate authority to decide who shall or shall not conceive and beget offspring. For a man and woman to take it upon themselves to decide when to have children and prevent having them by self- contrived means against natural law to suit their convenience is a mortal sin against God.

So becoming pregnant after a rape is a blessing? Your logic fails when your premise fails.

Click to expand...

Non- sequitur! It’s irrelevant to the case for abortion on demand. The position of the pro-choice movement is that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she might have during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. As one pro-life Protestant apologist put it: “To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.” Fertility and pregnancy were blessings for Hebrew women for the consummation of their marriages. In ancient Jewish culture, the Divine purpose of the conjugal act was the procreation of new life. Nowhere was it prescribed in Mosaic law that a pregnant woman must abort her child in cases of rape, incest, and fornication. In such cases, pregnancy wasn’t either a blessing or a curse from God. Becoming pregnant wasn’t in and of itself a blessing for a woman unless it was the result of the conjugal act in the sanctity of Holy Matrimony in accord with the Divine law. Outside of marriage, in the act of fornication, it’s the result of the woman’s sin. In cases of rape, it’s the result of the man’s sin. Nothing more.

The Torah states (Deut. 24:16): "The parents shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the parents; every man shall be put to death for his own sins.” Apparently, ancient Hebrew women considered the foetus in their womb to be their child. ‘When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy”’(Luke 1:41-44) [NRSVCE]. Both Mary and Elizabeth conceived and bore their offspring by the will of God. Elizabeth was a righteous woman who was blessed by God in her barren condition because God favoured her with the gift of becoming the mother of Christ's forerunner, John the Baptist. Mary, a virgin, had found favour with God to be the mother of His Son because of her singular holiness (Luke 1:28). Apart from God's favour and will, pregnancy isn't a divine blessing. Surely, a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant hasn't been favoured by God. Nor is she blessed by becoming pregnant against her will for having led a righteous life. There is no comparison between a married Hebrew woman who bears a child with her lawful husband and a victim of rape. There are exceptions to the rule. We mustn't draw a faulty analogy.


Finally, since conception doesn’t occur immediately following sexual intercourse, pregnancy can be avoided in rape cases if the victim seeks and receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male sperm removed from her uterus. If she fails in this responsibility, then she must assume the responsibility of conceiving and birthing the child. No child should be deprived of their right to life because of the sins of their fathers (rape) or mothers (fornication). Since the rape victim didn’t have intercourse with a lawful husband, she would be justified in receiving this medical treatment. But she would have no justification to abort the foetus once it had been conceived. The child is now hers by natural law. “Radically, the natural law consists of one supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties.”[ Fox, J. (1910) Natural Law]

There it is. The illogical, guilty complex that asserts having sexual pleasure of itself is a sin. Even in a marriage! Perhaps the unnatural limitation of the clergy to celibate men has something to do with this church doctrine being so important in their minds.

Click to expand...

The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2362]

Sexual pleasure is sinful, even in marriage, only “if sought for itself.” The marriage bed doesn’t give license to indulge in lustful sexual acts for the sake of individual personal gratification. A husband and wife are one flesh. Any man who even looks lustfully at a woman, including his wife, has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28).

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered if sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
[CCC, 2351]

“For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship that is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
[CCC, 2352]

By mutual self-giving, we don’t mean the spouses’ mutually taking advantage of each other for their own sexual gratification at the expense of the other. This mutuality must consist of love and respect for each other, which requires temperance (a Christian virtue) on both their parts. Lust is a vice, and one of the seven deadly sins.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man every hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:25-33

"There are specific violations of marital chastity that attack the unifying good of marriage. All forms of sexual sin such as rape, mutual masturbation, and sodomy are grave offenses against the value of sex and the dignity of marriage. In marriage, sexual intercourse is meant to be a time when the spouses give themselves fully to one another. This mutual self-donation brings intense pleasure and joy, yet its fundamental motivation is the renewal of the marriage vow: the complete giving of oneself and receiving of the other. The renewal of the profound and intimate love shared between a husband and his wife is a fruit of their special time together spent in mutual self-giving." (Not self-taking, my emphasis)
Stacey Holgate, Marital Chastity

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Hebrews 13, 4

Since the topic for discussion of this thread isn’t celibacy, perhaps you should click this link to see why celibacy is practised by Catholic clergy. You’ll discover how negative it isn’t as you think it is. This discipline originated in apostolic time. Paul and John are a prime examples. I recommend you read The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Rev. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius Press). For now, all you have are your presumptions.

Priestly Celibacy

PAX

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You're reading into the text things that are not there.

Click to expand...

You don't want them to be there.

PAX

Armoured said:

"implicit" huh? plenty of people disagree. Interesting you leave out all the bits where the Bible literally commands infanticide, abortion, and directly states that causing a miscarriage is not the same as murder.

Click to expand...

Not against God's will, but by it. And it is God who commands, not the Bible. So these passages you refer to, like the one below, are irrelevant to my argument.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘…go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
I Samuel 15:2-3

What has to be shown to refute my argument are passages in which God sanctions abortion and infanticide in Hebrew society. In any event, these so-called "innocent" Amalekite infants and children belonged to a self-perpetuating system of evil that often defied description. These very infants, for instance, would grow up to be just like their parents taking their own newborn babies and setting them on the arms of an idol to watch them burn to death. When God enjoined Adam to be fruitful and multiply, he certainly didn't envision as ideal for man that he should live like the Amalekite's did as an entire populace. I did point out that the Hebrew women were cursed with barrenness and miscarriages because of Israel's infidelity. God is the giver of life, so only He can rightfully prevent or destroy it. "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). Moreover, not only were the Amalekite's totally depraved, not unlike the people in Noah's time, if not worse, their aim was to totally annihilate Israel - to commit genocide. Their destruction as a nation, therefore, was necessitated by the gravity of this intended offense against God who had other plans for Israel in His promise of universal salvation. Had a remnant of this wicked society survived, Israel's problems wouldn't have been completely over. The Amalekites would surely have resumed their aggression against the Israelites when the time was ripe. The Amalekites were at enmity with God by being at enmity with Israel. So God destroyed them just as He destroyed His enemies by having Pharaoh's army and chariots swallowed up by the Red Sea. It appears the Israelites had the right to fight what they judged to be a just war in self-defence and preservation which God would sanction. They understood how important it was for them to survive as a nation in light of the promises God made to their patriarchs and the covenant He had established with them for the benefit of all mankind. Unfortunately, innocent people do suffer and die when caught up even in what is supposed to be a just war. But there is more to this than just fighting in self-defence or for the cause of right. God permits wars to chastise people or even nations for their sins as a pronouncement of judgment against them in their obstinate wickedness. God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and take the Judeans into captivity because of the idolatry and apostasy of Israel. That included the righteous remnant. The destruction of the Amalekites or any other wicked people wasn't much different. We read in Deuteronomy 13:12-17: God said to Israel, "I am using you here in this war as an instrument of my judgment upon this nation, and I’m bringing my violence upon this unbelievably wicked people… I’m going to have them destroyed."

PAX

justinangel said:

Not against God's will, but by it. And it is God who commands, not the Bible. So these passages you refer to, like the one below, are irrelevant to my argument.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘…go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
I Samuel 15:2-3

What has to be shown to refute my argument are passages in which God sanctions abortion and infanticide in Hebrew society. In any event, these so-called "innocent" Amalekite infants and children belonged to a self-perpetuating system of evil that often defied description. These very infants, for instance, would grow up to be just like their parents taking their own newborn babies and setting them on the arms of an idol to watch them burn to death. When God enjoined Adam to be fruitful and multiply, he certainly didn't envision as ideal for man that he should live like the Amalekite's did as an entire populace. I did point out that the Hebrew women were cursed with barrenness and miscarriages because of Israel's infidelity. God is the giver of life, so only He can rightfully prevent or destroy it. "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). Moreover, not only were the Amalekite's totally depraved, not unlike the people in Noah's time, if not worse, their aim was to totally annihilate Israel - to commit genocide. Their destruction as a nation, therefore, was necessitated by the gravity of this intended offense against God who had other plans for Israel in His promise of universal salvation. Had a remnant of this wicked society survived, Israel's problems wouldn't have been completely over. The Amalekites would surely have resumed their aggression against the Israelites when the time was ripe. The Amalekites were at enmity with God by being at enmity with Israel. So God destroyed them just as He destroyed His enemies by having Pharaoh's army and chariots swallowed up by the Red Sea. It appears the Israelites had the right to fight what they judged to be a just war in self-defence and preservation which God would sanction. They understood how important it was for them to survive as a nation in light of the promises God made to their patriarchs and the covenant He had established with them for the benefit of all mankind. Unfortunately, innocent people do suffer and die when caught up even in what is supposed to be a just war. But there is more to this than just fighting in self-defence or for the cause of right. God permits wars to chastise people or even nations for their sins as a pronouncement of judgment against them in their obstinate wickedness. God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and take the Judeans into captivity because of the idolatry and apostasy of Israel. That included the righteous remnant. The destruction of the Amalekites or any other wicked people wasn't much different. We read in Deuteronomy 13:12-17: God said to Israel, "I am using you here in this war as an instrument of my judgment upon this nation, and I’m bringing my violence upon this unbelievably wicked people… I’m going to have them destroyed."

PAX

Click to expand...

And if that were the ONLY passage I' mentioned, you may have a point.

Armoured said:

So what you're saying is that the early church father's condemnation isn't the whole story?

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't the whole story. And one might look at 'wormwood', a curious word in the Bible, which had a contraceptive use. Pope Paul VI, even though he wasn't very convincing in Humanae Vitae, followed a tradition that went back to the New Testament and earlier.

chevyontheriver said:

Of course it isn't the whole story. And one might look at 'wormwood', a curious word in the Bible, which had a contraceptive use. Pope Paul VI, even though he wasn't very convincing in Humanae Vitae, followed a tradition that went back to the New Testament and earlier.

Click to expand...

Great. So let's not quot them as if they are, then.

Armoured said:

Great. So let's not quot them as if they are, then.

Click to expand...

Huh? They are part of a continuous story. That's how I would quote them. Never as the whole story all by themselves. The hermeneutic is one of continuity, not discontinuity. At least for me. Others might prefer a more fractured approach.

chevyontheriver said:

Huh? They are part of a continuous story. That's how I would quote them. Never as the whole story all by themselves. The hermeneutic is one of continuity, not discontinuity. At least for me. Others might prefer a more fractured approach.

Click to expand...

Tell it to Justinangel

justinangel said:

First, I’m aware that Onan’s act was contraceptive in nature, but abortion is no different from contraception in principle. Both acts violate natural law and impede the procreation of human life. Both acts are contra-life. “Contraception signifies only the prevention of conception, but the contraceptive act seeks to impede the beginning of the life of a possible person. The distinction is only conceptual, but we think it is important, for the explicit reference to new life calls attention to the fact that contraception is a contra-life act” (The Teaching of "Humanae Vitae": A Defense, by John C. Ford. S.J., Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988, p.35). The implication is that “wasting one’s seed” is as detestable to God as abortion is, since both acts thwart His will. Fertility is a gift from God for begetting offspring. This gift mustn’t be withheld or abused.

Second, God slew Onan for what he did (“spill his seed”) not for what he didn’t do (“provide offspring for his brother”). If indeed God punished Onan merely for “refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother,” it is very unlikely that the “crass physical details” of his contraceptive act would have been spelled out in the text. Scripture is restrained in its descriptions of married intercourse (Gen. 6: 4; II Sam. 16: 22; I Chron. 23: 7 . . . Gen. 4: 17; Luke 1: 34). When it uses explicit language, “the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts.” (The Teaching of Humane Vitae: A Defense). Moreover, If Onan was slain by God simply for his refusal to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, his death sentence would not have been in accord with Mosaic law. The penalty for refusing to marry the widow of one’s brother to carry on the family lineage was being taken and slapped in the face with a sandal and spit upon (Deut. 25.5–10). So, in Onan’s case, the death penalty was applied because of how he refused to beget offspring for his brother. What he essentially did by his immoral gesture was defy God’s will in the most practical way that he could, that is by wasting his sperm so that he could not produce offspring for his brother as God willed. I doubt God would have slain him just by refusing to marry and lay with Tamar. Onan’s offense was moral and not legal in nature. It was what he actually did in his refusal (spilling his sperm on the ground) that was “displeasing in the sight of the Lord.” A slap in the face, so to speak.

In the words of Catholic apologist David Armstrong: “The text describes Onan's sin as a positive action (‘he did a detestable thing’). Coming directly after the author has mentioned what is certainly an outward act (i.e., "spilling the seed"), these words in v. 10 plainly indicate a causal link between that sexual act as such and the wrath and punishment of God.” Onan was punished for a sin of commission, not a sin of omission, as 20th century liberal Jewish and Christian exegetes would like us to believe. We should note that ancient Jewish culture abhorred another form of “wasting the seed” – sodomy and homosexuality, even prescribing the death penalty for it (Leviticus 20:13). In ancient Israel, the death penalty was applied only in moral cases which included idolatry, blasphemy, profaning the Sabbath, and even publicly dishonouring one’s parents, provided one wasn’t ignorant of the law or made a mistake of fact, as with adultery. Not even the Levitical sacrificial lambs could expiate these unpardonable sins. The Mishna gives a list of persons who should be stoned for a dozen of immoral offenses, including perverted sexual ones like having sexual intercourse with one’s parent and with animals (Sanhedrin Chapter 7, p. 53a [1]). Of course, private masturbation isn’t included, but Onan wasn’t condemned to death simply for masturbating, but for masturbating as a show of blatant defiance of God’s will, that he produces offspring for his deceased brother. Any deliberate contra-life act stands opposed to God’s will.



What makes you think that I meant women were rewarded for having miscarriages? Obviously, miscarriages were beyond their control unless they caused them by natural pharmaceutical means. But I’m not arguing that. My point is that fertility is a blessing from God, a temporal reward for abiding by His will. The Bible does mention miscarriages in the context of blessings and curses upon Israel. In Exodus 23:26. God promises Israel that “none will miscarry or be barren in your land” if they follow the Mosaic Covenant. The implication is that God is the ultimate authority to decide who shall or shall not conceive and beget offspring. For a man and woman to take it upon themselves to decide when to have children and prevent having them by self- contrived means against natural law to suit their convenience is a mortal sin against God.



Non- sequitur! It’s irrelevant to the case for abortion on demand. The position of the pro-choice movement is that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she might have during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape. As one pro-life Protestant apologist put it: “To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.” Fertility and pregnancy were blessings for Hebrew women for the consummation of their marriages. In ancient Jewish culture, the Divine purpose of the conjugal act was the procreation of new life. Nowhere was it prescribed in Mosaic law that a pregnant woman must abort her child in cases of rape, incest, and fornication. In such cases, pregnancy wasn’t either a blessing or a curse from God. Becoming pregnant wasn’t in and of itself a blessing for a woman unless it was the result of the conjugal act in the sanctity of Holy Matrimony in accord with the Divine law. Outside of marriage, in the act of fornication, it’s the result of the woman’s sin. In cases of rape, it’s the result of the man’s sin. Nothing more.

The Torah states (Deut. 24:16): "The parents shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the parents; every man shall be put to death for his own sins.” Apparently, ancient Hebrew women considered the foetus in their womb to be their child. ‘When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy”’(Luke 1:41-44) [NRSVCE]. Both Mary and Elizabeth conceived and bore their offspring by the will of God. Elizabeth was a righteous woman who was blessed by God in her barren condition because God favoured her with the gift of becoming the mother of Christ's forerunner, John the Baptist. Mary, a virgin, had found favour with God to be the mother of His Son because of her singular holiness (Luke 1:28). Apart from God's favour and will, pregnancy isn't a divine blessing. Surely, a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant hasn't been favoured by God. Nor is she blessed by becoming pregnant against her will for having led a righteous life. There is no comparison between a married Hebrew woman who bears a child with her lawful husband and a victim of rape. There are exceptions to the rule. We mustn't draw a faulty analogy.


Finally, since conception doesn’t occur immediately following sexual intercourse, pregnancy can be avoided in rape cases if the victim seeks and receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male sperm removed from her uterus. If she fails in this responsibility, then she must assume the responsibility of conceiving and birthing the child. No child should be deprived of their right to life because of the sins of their fathers (rape) or mothers (fornication). Since the rape victim didn’t have intercourse with a lawful husband, she would be justified in receiving this medical treatment. But she would have no justification to abort the foetus once it had been conceived. The child is now hers by natural law. “Radically, the natural law consists of one supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties.”[ Fox, J. (1910) Natural Law]



The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
[Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2362]

Sexual pleasure is sinful, even in marriage, only “if sought for itself.” The marriage bed doesn’t give license to indulge in lustful sexual acts for the sake of individual personal gratification. A husband and wife are one flesh. Any man who even looks lustfully at a woman, including his wife, has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28).

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered if sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
[CCC, 2351]

“For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship that is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
[CCC, 2352]

By mutual self-giving, we don’t mean the spouses’ mutually taking advantage of each other for their own sexual gratification at the expense of the other. This mutuality must consist of love and respect for each other, which requires temperance (a Christian virtue) on both their parts. Lust is a vice, and one of the seven deadly sins.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man every hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Ephesians 5:25-33

"There are specific violations of marital chastity that attack the unifying good of marriage. All forms of sexual sin such as rape, mutual masturbation, and sodomy are grave offenses against the value of sex and the dignity of marriage. In marriage, sexual intercourse is meant to be a time when the spouses give themselves fully to one another. This mutual self-donation brings intense pleasure and joy, yet its fundamental motivation is the renewal of the marriage vow: the complete giving of oneself and receiving of the other. The renewal of the profound and intimate love shared between a husband and his wife is a fruit of their special time together spent in mutual self-giving." (Not self-taking, my emphasis)
Stacey Holgate, Marital Chastity

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Hebrews 13, 4

Since the topic for discussion of this thread isn’t celibacy, perhaps you should click this link to see why celibacy is practised by Catholic clergy. You’ll discover how negative it isn’t as you think it is. This discipline originated in apostolic time. Paul and John are a prime examples. I recommend you read The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Rev. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius Press). For now, all you have are your presumptions.

Priestly Celibacy

PAX

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion, which clearly goes way beyond scriptural teachings.

Armoured said:

And if that were the ONLY passage I' mentioned, you may have a point.

Click to expand...

What passages are they? I can't read your mind.

PAX