Church teaching on contraception before 1054

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What do you mean when you say "sex is naturally ordered to procreation"? You seem to be saying more than just "many sexually active people conceive children".
What I mean is God created our bodies and gave us the act of marital intercourse for 2 means and one of them is naturally the procreation of children, hence we have sexual power and God allows us to become co-creators with him. We create the body of the baby and he created the souls. Its part of our Christian anthropology of creation. That is how our bodies work as humans. Its ordered toward a means and that means is unity and procreativity (for those not in the menopausal age). Would you agree with this that the body and the act itself is created and ordered toward that by God?
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,396
5,093
New Jersey
✟335,910.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What I mean is God created our bodies and gave us the act of marital intercourse for 2 means and one of them is naturally the procreation of children, hence we have sexual power and God allows us to become co-creators with him. We create the body of the baby and he created the souls. Its part of our Christian anthropology of creation. That is how our bodies work as humans. Its ordered toward a means and that means is unity and procreativity (for those not in the menopausal age). Would you agree with this that the body and the act itself is created and ordered toward that by God?
I agree that God created sex, that God created the means by which we bear children, and that God gives us the privilege of being co-creators of life when we bear children. I agree that God has created sex with at least 3 positive aspects to it -- procreation, intimacy with one's partner, and pleasure; I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list of sex's positive aspects.

I do not agree that a sexual act is somehow deficient or wrong if it does not include the possibility of conceiving children. I can't tell if this is a claim that you're trying to make when you talk about nature and order.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree that God created sex, that God created the means by which we bear children, and that God gives us the privilege of being co-creators of life when we bear children. I agree that God has created sex with at least 3 positive aspects to it -- procreation, intimacy with one's partner, and pleasure; I do not claim that this is an exhaustive list of sex's positive aspects.

I do not agree that a sexual act is somehow deficient or wrong if it does not include the possibility of conceiving children. I can't tell if this is a claim that you're trying to make when you talk about nature and order.
I agree with you except one point. In our view Sex is not deficient or wrong when it excludes the the possibility of conceiving children in a natural way(menopause or season of cycle or other medical reason) but it is deficient when it excludes the possibility of conceiving children in a artificial way through contraception.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,396
5,093
New Jersey
✟335,910.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree with you except one point. In our view Sex is not deficient or wrong when it excludes the the possibility of conceiving children in a natural way(menopause or season of cycle or other medical reason) but it is deficient when it excludes the possibility of conceiving children in a artificial way through contraception.

Yes, this is going to be a point on which we disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,224
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,242.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So my question is why has Christian sexual mortality changed all the sudden? That seems dubious. Its a good question. I would say its because many churches capitulated to the seeds of the sexual revolution. What do you think? Does your church condemn it? If not why not?

My understanding is that the persuasive factor in those Lambeth discussions - and related legal changes in England into which the Lords Spiritual (Bishops of the Church of England) had input - was the squalor and degradation of poverty-stricken folks living in slums and the like, for whom the means to limit further children could literally mean life and death when it came to working out who in the household got how much to eat.

Now you could argue that the problem there was poverty, and that the work done ought to have been aimed at alleviating that, (and I'd have some sympathy for that), but in the meantime, the church chose not to condemn folks in desperate situations doing what they needed to survive and keep their existing children alive.

Can you tell me what about this truth changed? Your Church like all Christians held it to be sinful till 1930. What changed in 1930? Can truth change? Why do you think this is?

Another point worth bearing in mind is that up until 1930, Anglicans didn't necessarily have an official position. We are a church that tends not to go in for (what my ethics lecturer charmingly described as) "moral micro-management" of its members. No doubt many Anglicans would have had opinions one way or another, but there would have been no document to which they could point to say that those opinions were the Anglican position. However, contraceptives were illegal under secular law in many places, so there wasn't a lot of need for the church to address it, either.

It was when changes to secular law were proposed that the Church of England was asked to formally address it for the first time, and this is what prompted the Lambeth discussions.

(A disclaimer: for all of the above, I'm working from memory rather than looking at sources, so if any of my details are fuzzy, that's why. But I'm confident I've got the gist of what was going on accurate).

How does that relate to today? Generally speaking, Anglicans expect our married couples to be open to having children. But we are comfortable allowing those couples to make decisions about the number and timing of those children. We don't endorse abortion or abortifacients, but the prevention of conception is not generally seen as morally problematic in that context. Nor do we see particular instances of sex within marriage which are not open to conception as deficient or an abuse of our God-given potential.

I have no doubt that the advent of safe, reliable, non-abortifacient contraceptives (as outlined by Quid above) informs that approach, but I also think that awareness of the many benefits of being able to manage one's fertility is part of the picture. Certainly from my own reading and listening to the experiences of those who have tried to live by the Catholic teaching on this, and found it problematic, dangerous or damaging in various ways, I would consider that approach to be deeply unpastoral, dismissive of and insensitive to the lived experience of real people, and I would not welcome any conversation in Anglican circles which aimed to adopt that kind of view.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,396
5,093
New Jersey
✟335,910.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
My understanding is that the persuasive factor in those Lambeth discussions - and related legal changes in England into which the Lords Spiritual (Bishops of the Church of England) had input - was the squalor and degradation of poverty-stricken folks living in slums and the like, for whom the means to limit further children could literally mean life and death when it came to working out who in the household got how much to eat.

Thanks for filling in the gaps in my knowledge. This context makes resolution #17 make more sense to me: "While the Conference admits that economic conditions are a serious factor in the situation, it condemns the propaganda which treats conception control as a way of meeting those unsatisfactory social and economic conditions which ought to be changed by the influence of Christian public opinion.", which I take to mean "Don't use approval of birth control as an excuse for not fixing the problems of poverty."

I most definitely agree with this statement:
Certainly from my own reading and listening to the experiences of those who have tried to live by the Catholic teaching on this, and found it problematic, dangerous or damaging in various ways, I would consider that approach to be deeply unpastoral, dismissive of and insensitive to the lived experience of real people, and I would not welcome any conversation in Anglican circles which aimed to adopt that kind of view.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Let me ask this of all of you. Do you think sex is naturally ordered by God toward the means of procreating? It seems the reformers and early Church and everyone major Christian Church did up till around 1930.
Everyone still thinks sex is orientated to producing children, being religious or not. What does that have to do with anything? The argument is whether that is its sole purpose, which is an argument you only find amongst Naturalistic Materialists; that teach the only goal of our selfish genes is procreation, and all the other things, such as marriage or morals, merely a means to that end to maximise reproductive success.

Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, have never held that view. Gregory the Great famously said we see the Spiritual in the Carnal, which is why we are told to love our spouse as Christ loves the Church. This is why man and woman become one Flesh. Mystics have often used quite sexual imagery to describe beatific visions, even in the Bible in Songs. Even at the height of the mediaeval cult of Chastity, did they not think this. The problem has always been Lust, desire that is not righteous and God-centred.

God has decreed sex for procreation, true. However, I am a married man, and while sex is pleasureable, there is far more going on. Why do you think couples feel so betrayed in Adultery? It is about Love, becoming one with your spouse, and in that way, the mystical language is fully justified. Christ is the bridegroom of the Church, we become one with Him, we are in-Christ as Paul said. If it was just about procreation, then all those statutes on Adultery or these spiritual metaphors break down utterly. God told us to be fruitful, but with the caveat of the marriage vow, because the idea is not just fertility but far more. I am not even willing to say whether procreation is the primary purpose of sex, as I really am not sure it necessarily is. As others noted, we don't have mating seasons or the like, and sex is a strong driver of human culture - perhaps this is an artifact of the point God is trying to make, of surrender to Him, of reliance on Him, which so often can only be articulated in reference to our carnal experience.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My understanding is that the persuasive factor in those Lambeth discussions - and related legal changes in England into which the Lords Spiritual (Bishops of the Church of England) had input - was the squalor and degradation of poverty-stricken folks living in slums and the like, for whom the means to limit further children could literally mean life and death when it came to working out who in the household got how much to eat.

Now you could argue that the problem there was poverty, and that the work done ought to have been aimed at alleviating that, (and I'd have some sympathy for that), but in the meantime, the church chose not to condemn folks in desperate situations doing what they needed to survive and keep their existing children alive.



Another point worth bearing in mind is that up until 1930, Anglicans didn't necessarily have an official position. We are a church that tends not to go in for (what my ethics lecturer charmingly described as) "moral micro-management" of its members. No doubt many Anglicans would have had opinions one way or another, but there would have been no document to which they could point to say that those opinions were the Anglican position. However, contraceptives were illegal under secular law in many places, so there wasn't a lot of need for the church to address it, either.

It was when changes to secular law were proposed that the Church of England was asked to formally address it for the first time, and this is what prompted the Lambeth discussions.

(A disclaimer: for all of the above, I'm working from memory rather than looking at sources, so if any of my details are fuzzy, that's why. But I'm confident I've got the gist of what was going on accurate).

How does that relate to today? Generally speaking, Anglicans expect our married couples to be open to having children. But we are comfortable allowing those couples to make decisions about the number and timing of those children. We don't endorse abortion or abortifacients, but the prevention of conception is not generally seen as morally problematic in that context. Nor do we see particular instances of sex within marriage which are not open to conception as deficient or an abuse of our God-given potential.

I have no doubt that the advent of safe, reliable, non-abortifacient contraceptives (as outlined by Quid above) informs that approach, but I also think that awareness of the many benefits of being able to manage one's fertility is part of the picture. Certainly from my own reading and listening to the experiences of those who have tried to live by the Catholic teaching on this, and found it problematic, dangerous or damaging in various ways, I would consider that approach to be deeply unpastoral, dismissive of and insensitive to the lived experience of real people, and I would not welcome any conversation in Anglican circles which aimed to adopt that kind of view.

So what your saying in a nutshell is your church now teaches "situation ethics". and disregards divine revelation in scripture and tradition and the entire history of the Church and all Churches(including all major reformers) for the first 1930 year of history on this moral issue?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Everyone still thinks sex is orientated to producing children, being religious or not. What does that have to do with anything? The argument is whether that is its sole purpose, which is an argument you only find amongst Naturalistic Materialists; that teach the only goal of our selfish genes is procreation, and all the other things, such as marriage or morals, merely a means to that end to maximise reproductive success.

Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, have never held that view. Gregory the Great famously said we see the Spiritual in the Carnal, which is why we are told to love our spouse as Christ loves the Church. This is why man and woman become one Flesh. Mystics have often used quite sexual imagery to describe beatific visions, even in the Bible in Songs. Even at the height of the mediaeval cult of Chastity, did they not think this. The problem has always been Lust, desire that is not righteous and God-centred.

God has decreed sex for procreation, true. However, I am a married man, and while sex is pleasureable, there is far more going on. Why do you think couples feel so betrayed in Adultery? It is about Love, becoming one with your spouse, and in that way, the mystical language is fully justified. Christ is the bridegroom of the Church, we become one with Him, we are in-Christ as Paul said. If it was just about procreation, then all those statutes on Adultery or these spiritual metaphors break down utterly. God told us to be fruitful, but with the caveat of the marriage vow, because the idea is not just fertility but far more. I am not even willing to say whether procreation is the primary purpose of sex, as I really am not sure it necessarily is. As others noted, we don't have mating seasons or the like, and sex is a strong driver of human culture - perhaps this is an artifact of the point God is trying to make, of surrender to Him, of reliance on Him, which so often can only be articulated in reference to our carnal experience.
The reason why this is important is that if it is naturally ordered by God for that purpose we ought not to unnaturally disorder it from one of its intended ordered purposes.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The reason why this is important is that if it is naturally ordered by God for that purpose we ought not to unnaturally mess with one of its intended ordered purposes.
That argument isn't very strong, as we already mess quite a lot with it. There is a whole discipline called Obstetrics that does, delivering babies prematurely and Anaesthetics interfering with the divine ordination that woman are supposed to experience pain in childbirth.
Further, we are told we have a lifespan of three score and ten. Are we supposed to just let people after 70 die, then?

God has ordered the world, but we are told to work it and rule over creation. I fail to see an actual argument for the immorality of the practise, because we would never accept the argument that we are not to interfere in God's ordering in most other fields. As Christ said, you know something by its Fruits - I am not convinced the breakdown of traditional marriage and chastity can be wholely placed at the feet of Contraception, and in the right circumstances, Contraception has helped people as well. Contraceptives aren't absolute - they have a thing called the Pearl Index, which is a representation of their failure rate. So in my opinion, if God wants you to fall pregnant, you will - human interference or not. I don't think this issue is so clear cut as people would like to present it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That argument isn't very strong, as we already mess quite a lot with it. There is a whole discipline called Obstetrics that does, delivering babies prematurely and Anaesthetics interfering with the divine ordination that woman are supposed to experience pain in childbirth.
Further, we are told we have a lifespan of three score and ten. Are we supposed to just let people after 70 die, then?

God has ordered the world, but we are told to work it and rule over creation. I fail to see an actual argument for the immorality of the practise, because we would never accept the argument that we are not to interfere in God's ordering in most other fields. As Christ said, you know something by its Fruits - I am not convinced the breakdown of traditional marriage and chastity can be wholely placed at the feet of Contraception, and in the right circumstances, Contraception has helped people as well. Contraceptives aren't absolute - they have a thing called the Pearl Index, which is a representation of their failure rate. So in my opinion, if God wants you to fall pregnant, you will - human interference or not.
You said "They have a thing called the Pearl Index, which is a representation of their failure rate. So in my opinion, if God wants you to fall pregnant, you will - human interference or not." That is like saying well well some abortions have failure rates and if God wants the kids to live they will. So no problem with them.

The giving women pain meds is different then stopping the entire life giving process that a thing is ordered to. I would disagree with this and I would say of course contraceptives helped fuel the sexual revolution and its a huge problem today.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You said "They have a thing called the Pearl Index, which is a representation of their failure rate. So in my opinion, if God wants you to fall pregnant, you will - human interference or not." That is like saying well well some abortions have failure rates and if God wants the kids to live they will. So no problem with them.
Not at all. Abortion is clearly killing of a human foetus, and any argument for it, is just as applicable to infanticide. The latter is clearly wrong, and therefore the former too.
You cannot equate a conceived embryo with the mere potential of one - or is the possibility of Adultery the same as commiting it, say? The difference between negating the possibility that something is to come to be, and terminating something already existent, is hardly the same. This is merely a fallacious equivalence.

Besides, my argument was not to excuse Contraception by the Pearl Index morally, but to show that our "interference in God's ordering" is hardly of necessity.

The giving women pain meds is different then stopping the entire life giving process that a thing is ordered to. I would disagree with this and I would say of course contraceptives helped fuel the sexual revolution and its a huge problem today.
Feel free to justify why the first statement differs then, as your argument was merely God's ordering - which would apply either way - and is therefore a poor argument. You are assuming differing valence applies for the same argument in both instances, but you need to show why one carries more weight than the other.

The second argument I don't doubt. Contraceptive certainly played a part, but as I said, there were Libertine periods earlier too, and Prostitution has always abounded. People remained faithful to their spouses too, in the 60s, it wasn't just a sudden throwing in the towel on Chastity. If only the risk of pregnancy stood in the way of traditional sexual morality's death, then it was a weak creature indeed. I think the truth far less simplistic and more nuanced - it played its part, but the cause was far more cultural and political, than sequelae of technology.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not at all. Abortion is clearly killing of a human foetus, and any argument for it, is just as applicable to infanticide. The latter is clearly wrong, and therefore the former too.
You cannot equate a conceived embryo with the mere potential of one - or is the possibility of Adultery the same as commiting it, say? The difference between negating the possibility that something is to come to be, and terminating something already existent, is hardly the same. This is merely a fallacious equivalence.

Besides, my argument was not to excuse Contraception by the Pearl Index morally, but to show that our "interference in God's ordering" is hardly of necessity.


Feel free to justify why the first statement differs then, as your argument was merely God's ordering - which would apply either way - and is therefore a poor argument. You are assuming differing valence applies for the same argument in both instances, but you need to show why one carries more weight than the other.

The second argument I don't doubt. Contraceptive certainly played a part, but as I said, there were Libertine periods earlier too, and Prostitution has always abounded. People remained faithful to their spouses too, in the 60s, it wasn't just a sudden throwing in the towel on Chastity. If only the risk of pregnancy stood in the way of traditional sexual morality's death, than it was a weak creature indeed. I think the truth far less simplistic and more nuanced - it played its part, but the cause was far more cultural and political, than sequelae of technology.


Well it depends. I took classes with a researcher nurse Dr. Mary Lee Baron at St. Louis University and she showed us the medical charts that revealed that the vast majority of current contraceptives(with the exception of prophylactics) actually cause abortions. St. Louis University has this info and its public. We asked how this could be because many doctors say they do not cause abortions. She told us they changed what the considered to be life. It always has been life starts at conception. Many have changed it to life starts after "implantation". This is the issue. So the Pill, the Shot, and most contraception today actually can cause abortions. One more soul documents some of this. Also you can find find this evidence down in SLUH's research if you contact Dr. Baron. Also My wife OBGYN knows this as well . There are several Catholic OBGYN that have this medical info too

Here is some info on this

According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2010 the birth control pill was used by over 10 million women in the US. Over 27 million women used other methods of birth control, and almost 14 million of these were either sterilized or living with a sterilized man. Other widely used methods of birth control included condoms (nearly 6.2 million women), contraceptive injections (1.4 million), withdrawal (1.9 million), and the IUD (2.1 million).1

“The Pill”

The Pill consists of one or more types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that implantation of a newly conceived embryo is unlikely.

Ethical Concerns: When the Pill works by preventing implantation of a recently conceived embryo, it produces an early abortion.2

Medical side effects: In 2005, the World Health Organization officially classified oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens (Group I being the most dangerous from Groups I-IV).3 A year later, a comprehensive meta-analysis published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, noted that 21 out of 23 studies found an increased risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer in women who had taken the Pill prior to the birth of their first child. Overall this group of women experienced a 44% increased risk in developing breast cancer prior to age 50.4 Other side effects that women have experienced include high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, depression, weight gain, and migraines.5 Although the Pill decreases the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, it increases the risk of breast, liver and cervical cancer.6 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partner(s) have the AIDS virus.7,8,9

“The Shot”

Commonly known as “the Shot,” Depo-Provera, a long acting progestin hormone, is injected into a woman’s muscle every three months. It works by decreasing ovulation, by inhibiting sperm transport and by changing the lining of a woman’s uterus.10

Ethical concerns: By changing the lining of the uterus, Depo-Provera can cause an early abortion when conception does occur.

Medical side effects: The results of two major world studies have shown that women who take Depo-Provera for two years or more before age 25 have at least a 190% increased risk of developing breast cancer.11 In addition, Depo-Provera may reduce a woman’s bone density,12 and worsen her cholesterol level.13 One study found that women who had received injectable progestins (i.e., usually Depo-Provera or norethisterone enanthate) for at least five years suffered a 430% increased risk of developing cervical cancer.14 Several studies have shown that women who receive injectable progestins have a much higher rate of contracting the AIDS virus if their partner is infected, with one study showing a 240% increased risk.15

Other Hormonal Contraceptives

The same artificial hormones used in the Pill and Depo-Provera are packaged in a variety of other delivery systems: the Patch, the “Morning after Pill,” hormone impregnated IUDs and vaginal inserts, and others. More are in development. Most are so new that their side effects have not been well researched. They use similar hormones as in the Pill and can be expected to have generally the same cancer-producing risks.

Barrier Methods: The Condom and the Diaphragm

The condom and diaphragm are latex devices used to prevent sperm from reaching the ovum, thus preventing fertilization.

Medical side effects: The condom has a failure rate for avoiding pregnancy that is estimated to be between 10-30%.16, 17 There are several reasons: breakage or slippage during use, manufacturing defects, and defects caused by shipping and storage in a hot or very cold place. A comprehensive review of condom effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, published in 2001, concluded that use of condoms reduces, but does not eliminate transmission of the AIDS virus to men and women and of gonorrhea to men. The review also concluded that condoms have no proven effectiveness in reducing the transmission of any other STD.18 At least one study has noted that women who use barrier methods such as the diaphragm or condom, or the withdrawal method, had a 137% increased risk of developing preeclampsia.19 Preeclampsia, a complication occurring in some pregnant women, is a syndrome of high blood pressure, fluid retention, and kidney damage, which may eventually lead to prolonged seizures and/or coma. It is theorized that exposure to the male’s sperm plays a protective role against preeclampsia.

Spermicides

A spermicide is an agent that is designed to kill the man’s sperm and is often sold as a gel or as an ingredient in the vaginal sponge.

Medical side effects: Toxic Shock Syndrome has been associated with the spermicide sponge.20 One researcher has noted that couples who have used certain spermicides within a month of conception have experienced a doubling in the rate of birth defects, as well as a doubling of the rate of miscarriage.21

The IUD (Intrauterine Device)

This is a T-shaped device made of hard plastic. It may also contain copper or progestin hormones. A doctor inserts it into a woman’s uterus. It works by irritating the lining of the uterus and obstructing sperm transport.

Ethical concerns: When conception occurs with an IUD in place, the IUD can prevent implantation, thus causing an early abortion.22

Medical side effects: These include uterine perforation, which may lead to a hysterectomy, and infections, such as a pelvic or tubo-ovarian abscess. Use of all IUDs has been associated with an increased incidence of PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease).23 The use of IUDs have been associated with actinomycosis, an infection that can cause long term complications such as pelvic mass and infertility.24 The IUD may occasionally result in pregnancy and if this were to occur, an ectopic pregnancy would be more likely to occur. An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the unborn child implants himself/ herself in a location other than in the mother’s uterus, usually in the Fallopian tube. According to Rossing and Daling, two prominent researchers, women who had used an IUD for three or more years were more than twice as likely to have a tubal pregnancy as women who had never used an IUD, even years after the IUD had been removed.25Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal death in the United States. The IUD may also cause back aches, cramping, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cycles), and infertility. 23
Taken from here :

Dear Friend of One More Soul,
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well it depends. I took classes with a researcher nurse Dr. Mary Lee Baron at St. Louis University and she showed us the medical charts that revealed that the vast majority of current contraceptives(with the exception of prophylactics) actually cause abortions. St. Louis University has this info and its public. We asked how this could be because many doctors say they do not cause abortions. She told us they changed what the considered to be life. It always has been life starts at conception. Many have changed it to life starts after "implantation". This is the issue. So the Pill, the Shot, and most contraception today actually can cause abortions. One more soul documents some of this. Also you can find find this evidence down in SLUH's research if you contact Dr. Baron. Also My wife OBGYN knows this as well . There are several Catholic OBGYN that have this medical info too

Here is some info on this

According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2010 the birth control pill was used by over 10 million women in the US. Over 27 million women used other methods of birth control, and almost 14 million of these were either sterilized or living with a sterilized man. Other widely used methods of birth control included condoms (nearly 6.2 million women), contraceptive injections (1.4 million), withdrawal (1.9 million), and the IUD (2.1 million).1

“The Pill”

The Pill consists of one or more types of artificial hormones called estrogens and progestins. It works by inhibiting ovulation and sperm transport and by changing the lining of the inside of a woman’s uterus (called the endometrium) so that implantation of a newly conceived embryo is unlikely.

Ethical Concerns: When the Pill works by preventing implantation of a recently conceived embryo, it produces an early abortion.2

Medical side effects: In 2005, the World Health Organization officially classified oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens (Group I being the most dangerous from Groups I-IV).3 A year later, a comprehensive meta-analysis published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, noted that 21 out of 23 studies found an increased risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer in women who had taken the Pill prior to the birth of their first child. Overall this group of women experienced a 44% increased risk in developing breast cancer prior to age 50.4 Other side effects that women have experienced include high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, depression, weight gain, and migraines.5 Although the Pill decreases the risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, it increases the risk of breast, liver and cervical cancer.6 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partner(s) have the AIDS virus.7,8,9

“The Shot”

Commonly known as “the Shot,” Depo-Provera, a long acting progestin hormone, is injected into a woman’s muscle every three months. It works by decreasing ovulation, by inhibiting sperm transport and by changing the lining of a woman’s uterus.10

Ethical concerns: By changing the lining of the uterus, Depo-Provera can cause an early abortion when conception does occur.

Medical side effects: The results of two major world studies have shown that women who take Depo-Provera for two years or more before age 25 have at least a 190% increased risk of developing breast cancer.11 In addition, Depo-Provera may reduce a woman’s bone density,12 and worsen her cholesterol level.13 One study found that women who had received injectable progestins (i.e., usually Depo-Provera or norethisterone enanthate) for at least five years suffered a 430% increased risk of developing cervical cancer.14 Several studies have shown that women who receive injectable progestins have a much higher rate of contracting the AIDS virus if their partner is infected, with one study showing a 240% increased risk.15

Other Hormonal Contraceptives

The same artificial hormones used in the Pill and Depo-Provera are packaged in a variety of other delivery systems: the Patch, the “Morning after Pill,” hormone impregnated IUDs and vaginal inserts, and others. More are in development. Most are so new that their side effects have not been well researched. They use similar hormones as in the Pill and can be expected to have generally the same cancer-producing risks.

Barrier Methods: The Condom and the Diaphragm

The condom and diaphragm are latex devices used to prevent sperm from reaching the ovum, thus preventing fertilization.

Medical side effects: The condom has a failure rate for avoiding pregnancy that is estimated to be between 10-30%.16, 17 There are several reasons: breakage or slippage during use, manufacturing defects, and defects caused by shipping and storage in a hot or very cold place. A comprehensive review of condom effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, published in 2001, concluded that use of condoms reduces, but does not eliminate transmission of the AIDS virus to men and women and of gonorrhea to men. The review also concluded that condoms have no proven effectiveness in reducing the transmission of any other STD.18 At least one study has noted that women who use barrier methods such as the diaphragm or condom, or the withdrawal method, had a 137% increased risk of developing preeclampsia.19 Preeclampsia, a complication occurring in some pregnant women, is a syndrome of high blood pressure, fluid retention, and kidney damage, which may eventually lead to prolonged seizures and/or coma. It is theorized that exposure to the male’s sperm plays a protective role against preeclampsia.

Spermicides

A spermicide is an agent that is designed to kill the man’s sperm and is often sold as a gel or as an ingredient in the vaginal sponge.

Medical side effects: Toxic Shock Syndrome has been associated with the spermicide sponge.20 One researcher has noted that couples who have used certain spermicides within a month of conception have experienced a doubling in the rate of birth defects, as well as a doubling of the rate of miscarriage.21

The IUD (Intrauterine Device)

This is a T-shaped device made of hard plastic. It may also contain copper or progestin hormones. A doctor inserts it into a woman’s uterus. It works by irritating the lining of the uterus and obstructing sperm transport.

Ethical concerns: When conception occurs with an IUD in place, the IUD can prevent implantation, thus causing an early abortion.22

Medical side effects: These include uterine perforation, which may lead to a hysterectomy, and infections, such as a pelvic or tubo-ovarian abscess. Use of all IUDs has been associated with an increased incidence of PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease).23 The use of IUDs have been associated with actinomycosis, an infection that can cause long term complications such as pelvic mass and infertility.24 The IUD may occasionally result in pregnancy and if this were to occur, an ectopic pregnancy would be more likely to occur. An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the unborn child implants himself/ herself in a location other than in the mother’s uterus, usually in the Fallopian tube. According to Rossing and Daling, two prominent researchers, women who had used an IUD for three or more years were more than twice as likely to have a tubal pregnancy as women who had never used an IUD, even years after the IUD had been removed.25Ectopic pregnancy remains the leading cause of maternal death in the United States. The IUD may also cause back aches, cramping, dyspareunia (painful intercourse), dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual cycles), and infertility. 23
Taken from here :

Dear Friend of One More Soul,
My friend, you are making a bit of a mistake here. I am a doctor myself, and married to a Gynae. This is a collection of half-truths and misunderstandings.

As I said, Intra-Uterine devices and high dose Progesterone formulations may inhibit implantation, and if you look at my previous post, I mention that they are a different animal from Contraceptives that inhibit the release of the Ova.

Here is a review article on the subject:
The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. - PubMed - NCBI

As it notes, the Evidence-Based determination is that no abortifacient action can be shown, nor would you expect it physiologically in most versions of Oral contraceptive, Implanon or Injectable. Most of these work by inhibiting Gonadotrophin release by the Pituatary via negative feedback from ovarian LH and FSH, which would not occur fast enough to definitely inhibit implantation. Anecdote is not proof, and the statistical analysis is clear here. There is no clear evidence of abortifacient action, and no reason to suspect it at all physiologically in certain classes of Contraceptive, unless you fudge a bit - which would be more driven by confirmation bias, in all probability, than the actual evidence.

As to the dangers of Contraceptives, these are very real. No medical intervention is without complications. However, their incidence and prevalence are low - hence millions take birth control without issue. They are far far safer than the abortifacients of the past. Besides, Pregnancy is itself a very dangerous state, with increased physiologic risk of haematological disorders and cardiovascular risk, so many argue that the risk of taking Contraceptives are lower than the risk would be if a person was intermittently pregnant every 1 or 2 years.

Again, a bit more complicated than you would like to present the case. As I said, I don't think it unreasonable for the Church to rethink the morality thereof, but the case is not clear at all. One would need to go into arguments of the potentialities here, which could get messy indeed. That the original Church set up this fence I wholeheartedly agree with; that it needs to keep it up is far more debatable, if we investigate the reasoning behind such a decision (to paraphrase GK Chesterton).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,224
19,070
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,506,242.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So what your saying in a nutshell is your church now teaches "situation ethics". and disregards divine revelation in scripture and tradition and the entire history of the Church and all Churches(including all major reformers) for the first 1930 year of history on this moral issue?"

"Situation ethics: the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances."

No, because first we would have to agree that there is a moral law in play here, and we don't.

I do not see anything in Scripture which tells me it's wrong to use contraception. The global Anglican communion, as it is today, is a church deeply marked by the Reformation and not bound to everything Catholics hold to as tradition.

That we allow the use of something that was not used for 19 centuries is, in this case, a bit like allowing the internet; contemporary contraceptives did not exist for those 19 centuries. So the history of non-use of them is not relevant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,594
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,104.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This will be a good one for a juicy discussion. This is an interesting article from a scholar Dr. William Marshner who was also a convert to the Catholic faith from the lutheran Church. It documents the early Church Fathers condemnations on contraception. Catholics and many Christians even non Catholics hold that contraception is sinful and wrong and a great abuse to one's God given sexual power. This is also factual that even after 1054 the reformers agreed with the Catholic Church on this. Infact after the reformation almost all Churches thought contraception to be sinful and a sin against the marital covenant(often called onanism among other things) until 1930 at the Lambeth conference when the Anglican Church opened pandora's box. But how can this be truth does not change? Does your church condemn it? If not why not? All Christians did for most of history!

Church Teaching Against Contraception Prior To 1054 – Dr. William H. Marshner

Another book that documents the teaching of the reformers on this is this book writen by a protestant :

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Birth-Control-Charles-Provan/dp/9991799834
I'm curious as to why he chose the date of 1054.
 
Upvote 0