Contraception

[MoonlessNight]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the Catholic Church doesn't really need to explain why artificial contraception is sinful. All that matters is that this is (according to their theology) what God has proclaimed through the vehicle of the Church.

But we should be able to arrive to the same general location by revelation, reason and through the church. Certainly no one factor can fill in everything, or else the others would be unnecessary (a usual example being that you can know through reason alone that Jesus died on the cross.)

Of course with birth control there is more behind it, the prohibition is the only natural conclusion from the Catholic standpoint on human sexuality.

 

[gengwall]

But we should be able to arrive to the same general location by revelation, reason and through the church. Certainly no one factor can fill in everything, or else the others would be unnecessary (a usual example being that you can know through reason alone that Jesus died on the cross.)

Of course with birth control there is more behind it, the prohibition is the only natural conclusion from the Catholic standpoint on human sexuality.

I understand that. But is the Catholic standpoint biblical? That is the fundimental question. The only revelation to us is the scriptures. Indeed we should apply reason to that but such reason without scriptural support is just playing God.

Explain the "usual" example to me. I can't even begin to reason about Jesus' death on the cross without evidence; without truth. The reason I know Jesus died is because scripture tells me He did. I don't think I get what you are saying.

 

[gengwall]

Some more thoughts on Onan, since he is what the quiverful movement point to as the poster child for anti-contraception.

Consider: if it is only the contraceptive act that is the sin, then all of the other surrounding issues become irrelevant. It is irrelevant that he deceived his father and the community. It is irrelevant that he defrauded his brother. It is irrelevant that he humiliated and defiled his wife. It is irrelevant that he mocked the law and God. All of his treachery is irrelevant if it is simply the contraceptive act that is the sin. In fact, he could have spent a lifetime being fruitful and could have multiplied greatly with Tamar and only done this act once, and according to those opposed to contraception, he would have been guilty of the same sin and deserved and received the same punishment. To disregard all of his wicked intents and manipulations in contemplating what his sin was is quite astonishing.

There is an interesting twist to this little story. The NIV has a very different translation from every other version.

Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. (NIV)

Is it possible that he perpetuated this ruse repeatedly over a period of time? If so, and it is the act itself that is the sin and deserves death, then why did God not strike him down the first time. Conversely, what does it say about the sin that God let him perpetuate it without correction. Certainly, no one would claim that it only became a sin upon repeated execution and after a certain number of repetitions.

I would suggest that God continued to give Onan a chance to repent and set things right. That had he finally changed and made the attempt to fulfill his duty, God would have left him alone to live out his days. So much for the contraception being the sin. Only after it became clear that Onan was determined to continue the fraud, did God pass final judgement. Again in this case, the actual actions used in the fraudulent exercise are really irrelevant. Onan could have employed multiple means to avoid impregnating Tamar and he would have been as guilty. Because it was the fraud itself that was the sin, not the means by which it was achieved.

(BTW - I don't buy the NIV translation, but am only accepting it here to explore all sides of the question.)

 

[Ave Maria]

Contraception and the use of it is gravely immoral.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html#tradition-II

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html#contracept

http://www.omsoul.com/

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/

 

[ebia]

Originally Posted by Caesarius of Arles
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

What an absurdly inconsitant position.

 

[Ave Maria]

What an absurdly inconsitant position.

No offense intended whatsoever but what is inconsitant? Did you mean inconsistant? If so, how is it inconsistant?

 

[ebia]

No offense intended whatsoever but what is inconsitant? Did you mean inconsistant? If so, how is it inconsistant?

Yes, I did mean inconsistant. I should have thought the "how" was pretty self-evident if one thought about the quote.

 

[Abiel]

uote:
Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Cont...rilization.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarius of Arles
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sex...l#tradition-II

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sex...tml#contracept

http://www.omsoul.com/

http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/

It says 'OXO' on buses. Doesn't mean they sell it.

 

[JohnLocke]

Personally,

I find it odd that mortals should be so concerned about thwarting the divine will, since every evidence seems to indicate that the divine will, once raised, is implacable.

Whether one wishes to talk about the extra-natural births of Sarah or Mary, or the curse of sexual orientation upon the idolators of Soddom and Gammorah, it seems quite clear that if and when God decides that one should have sex or procreate He is quite will able to force it over any and all objection of man or nature.

Though this may get me banned, I'd still trade my physical existence for the opportunity to hear the Divine Voice and ask, "So why don't you take my calls?"

Cheers

 

[gengwall]

Contraception and the use of it is gravely immoral...[followed by a whole pile of Catholic propoganda]

The foolish musings of man have no interest to me. Show us some scripture.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The foolish musings of man have no interest to me. Show us some scripture.

I am curious as to what exactly you are looking for here. Do you want scripture saying explictly that one should not use contraception, or scripture that can be used in an argument against contraception?

 

[christalee4]

Medical science has progressed insofar we know about bacteria, microorganisms, how organs function, and have discovered medicines to cure and prevent fatal disease - whereas before we used to think it was "humors", evil spirits, or witches causing the health problems. Contraception has evolved in a similar way; it used to be an issue pertaining to morals and women's function in society, but now it pertains to health. If divine inspiration and power has enabled humans to progress towards a better way of living, is not contraception, like medical science, a divinely inspired invention?

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Hello Gengwall

Thank you so much for starting this topic in the non-Christians area. Last night I read the entire thread in the marriage forum you and several others participated in-it was a very interesting thread. (BTW, as a neutral agnostic observer the anti-contraceptionist severely lost the debate, and used lots of fallacious argumentation in the process. It was sad to watch a debate like that go downhill that quickly.)

AFAIK, only two streams of Christianity are oppossed artificial birth control, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Church's position on this subject is enumerated in Pope Paul VI's famous encyclical Humane Vitae and is further explained by Pope JP II's Theology of the Body.

Though there is an anti-contraception movement within the American Christian ekklessia I have not felt that this movement is very large in the United States. The vast majority of American Roman Catholics do not care what the Vatican has to say on the subject (or on any other subject for that matter) and use artificial birth control anyway. Greek Orthodoxy is not a large part of our religious demographic, and most Protestant Christians in this country are not anti-contraceptional.

The only threat that I see coming from this movement is related to the abortion debate. If Roe v. Wade is overturned what issue is next on the right-wing agenda, contraception?

I believe that all forms of contraception are ethical.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Some more thoughts on Onan . . .

Speaking of Onan, I would like to know how the Jewish people throughout the ages have interpreted this story. Afterall, it is their book and their law.

 

[gengwall]

I am curious as to what exactly you are looking for here. Do you want scripture saying explictly that one should not use contraception, or scripture that can be used in an argument against contraception?

Either would be a good start.

 

[gengwall]

Speaking of Onan, I would like to know how the Jewish people throughout the ages have interpreted this story. Afterall, it is their book and their law.

So would I! Any Jews out there that can help? I will try to search on line to see if there is any rabbinical commentary on it.

[Edit]

There is some information in wikipedia regarding the rabbinical view of masturbation using the Onan incident (it seems the ancient Jews were more focused on masturbation than on contraception). More "liberal" Jewish sects take a predictably more lenient line when dealing with either Onan or masturbation itself. So, it appears Judaism is no less divided than Crhistianity. But that opinion comes from a brief wikipedia entry, hardly the authority on Jewish interpretation of scripture. So take it with a grain of salt.

 

[gengwall]

The only threat that I see coming from this movement is related to the abortion debate. If Roe v. Wade is overturned what issue is next on the right-wing agenda, contraception?

First, keep in mind that this is a much further right part of the right wing than what opposes abortion. There is really no major support at all in the Republican party that would push for banning contraception. The morning after pill being the only possible exception.

For contraception to be banned, the court would have to overturn Griswold, something I don't even think Scalia has shown any interest in doing. The court would have to really change makeup drastically for there to be any threat to private use of contraception. (I know all you liberals think it has already changed drastically. But imagine a change 10 times as drastic. There is just no way that we are going to get a court that radically conservative. If we did, I might even think about moving.)

 

[gengwall]

And the deafening silence continues...

I have been thinking the past few days about the more philosophical aspects of the anti-contraception position and thought it might be worth an exploration of the scriptures regarding them.

Today, I'll tackle proposition 1 - The purpose of marriage is procreation.

This seems silly even at a glance because marriage is not a pre-requisite to procreation. If all God wanted for us was to pop out babies, he would have let us fornicate like bunnies and we could have accomplished the task just fine. So, it seems clear God has something grander, or even completely different, in mind when it comes to marriage.

Genesis 2:18,24 - 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

At it's core, the reason for marriage is "oneness". Men and women are not complete alone - they need the marriage union and the "one flesh" realtionship that results to fully follow and commune with God, to interact and manage the world we live in, and to experience the companionship we so desparately need. Without marriage, the world would be much more of a chaotic place.

Having children relates to marriage in a strange and somewhat contradictory way. Indeed, we do not need children to enjoy the benefits of marriage that are outlined in this verse. But, children are a blessing from the Lord and can enhance the marriage experience. Children also can introduce tension into marriage that tears away at the oneness that marriage was designed to foster. Yet children benefit greatly by having parents in a committed, loving, unified, "one flesh" relationship. So, at best, we can only say that procreation has both positive and negative effects in relation to marriage. Hardly a strong case for children being the "purpose" for marriage.

1 Cor 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

A mere chapter later from the Genesis verse quoted above, humans messed up everthing. Immorality entered the world and created yet another purpose for marriage. Together, we are better equiped to fight the immorality around us. Marriage is an often necessary component to living a Godly life. Again, marriage itself isn't the cause of children. Children can be produced by immoral behavior as easily as moral behavior. So the idea that procreation is presumed as part of the marriage admonitions in 1 Cor 7 is rediculous. It is more accurate to say that children are presumed in life regardless of marital state. But to avoid some of the immoral failings we are all prone toward, it is best if we get married. Let the children fall where they may.

Revelations 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."

Lest we not forget, marriage is also a picture of Christ and the church. As such, it is a means by which a couple can enhance their communion with God. Through marriage, God is praised and glorified. Children, again, are not part of this formula. Barren couples can join in this worship and communion as well as exceedingly fruitful couples. The number or even presence of children is irrelevant in this very important purpose for marriage.

In conclusion, I find it hard to find any evidence in the scriptures that the purpose for marriage is having children. Quite the contrary, it seems the purpose for marriage has everything to do with the couple, their needs, their impact on the world, their relationship to each other, and their relationship to God. It seems to me that children are not even on the radar when we look at the purposes for marriage.

 

[Blackmarch]

This has been discussed a number of times in other places, but I would like to renew the debate here. I have several reasons for thinking this is a good forum to do so.

First, many in the secular community feel that there is a anti-contraception movement in the Christian church and that this movement is a grave threat. Although I think this exaggerated, those very same people are prevalent here and certainly have an ax to grind. Therefore, the existence and influence of this movement are a fair subtopic here as well.

Second, it certainly is an ethical and moral issue. Depending on the turth about contraception, pretty much half of the Christian church one way or another is wrong. In fact, I suspect that very few issues in the church have as much polarity (especially between leadership and congregants). So, the debate needs to happen and Ethics and Morality seems the place for it to take place.

Third, not much is known, at least by me, of how other religious systems view the issue. I am very curious how Jews, Muslims, and any other religions feel about contraception and what their justifications for those stances are.

So, let us begin.

I will start with my view. I believe that, although the bible says that children are a blessing and although God has charged us to "be fruitful and multiply", that those axioms are general to humankind and not directed at each specific couple. Furthermore, there is no direct, or IMO, even indirect condemnation of contraception in the bible (I'm sure we'll get to Onan eventually where we can flush this out). Without a direct prohibition and without a direct command, I believe God leaves it up to individual couples how to best manage their families.

Now, I suspect that my athiest friends will share this view. In fact, they may wonder why there is any question at all or why the bible should even have anything to do with it. I don't wish to cut them out of the debate, but I would prefer to concentrate on biblical and other religious justifications for moral and ethical positions. So, please join in as you see fit. But please refrain from dismissing our religious biases and arguments since it is exactly those things I wish to expose and scrutinize in this thread. In other words, depending on the religion, that religion's documents are to be treated with respect and authority at least for those within that community.

An example, if Muslims want to flush out the issue within their community, I accept that the Koran is their source of truth and I will not dismiss that source of truth for them. They may have at it within their community and I would only interject if I was curious or wanted clarification on their interpretation of their sacred texts. I expect the same level of respect for the bible or any other sacred texts. If you think this is all nonsense, feel free to say so but then please move on to other issues. We will accept that you think we are making 'much ado about nothing'.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with contraception itself...
Such an act should be between a person and God (speaking on the religious side of the fence)

However I find that using contraception to avoid or go around certain laws is wrong/hypocritical.

 

[gengwall]

As the Agnostic Witch/ Eclectic Wiccan (who "Real Wiccans" insist is not a member of the Real Wiccan Club), there are no religiously backed beliefs that mandate the use or rejection of birth control. It's seen as a largely personal choice between the person/ couple, and that's where it ends.

There are some who firmly believe that since fertility is key in the honoring of the cycles of life that birth control (especially hormonal birth control) can hamper the connection to The Divine. However, those beliefs are personal, not dogmatic nor are they outlined in any official doctrine.

My personal belief:

I've been on some form of birth control since 18, when I first started having sex. I've been on hormonal something-or-other until last August, when I got an IUD. I am happily married, and I'm not prepared to or especially eager to have kids right now, though we'd accept any "accidents" that come down the line. If it weren't for birth control, we'd have the marital dynamic his mother experienced... 6 kids in less than 10 years... A dynamic neither of us want. However, just because we don't want kids right now, because of birth control, we can (and do) take full advantage of our marital relations, which only helps to strengthen our relationship together.

That, I think is just as an important (and more) than sex for baby-making.

Your position and the way you conduct your marriage sounds remarkably biblical. Creepy, huh?