Contraception

cubinity said:

I've noticed "pulling out," as Onan did, is not listed by the ever-credible Wikipedia.
Since there is no barrier method, such as condom or diaphram, hormonal contraception, or injectable contraceptive mentioned in the Bible, I am curious how you intend to maintain your assertion that this Wikipedia definition of contraception and Pope Paul's Biblical motive are in line with one another.
In other words, this Wikipedia article shows that what Onan did is not considered contraception. So, if what Onan did was not contraception, what Biblical basis did Pope Paul have?

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

The Wikipedia citation does not claim to mention every means of birth control (nor does the Catechism), but it does demonstrate that contraception can be understood as one kind of birth control among many. And that is the whole point: if you are going to look at 'contraception' as a term which refers to EVERY means of birth control, then periodic continence is 'contraception'.

But if you are going to look at 'contraception' as a term which refers to ONE KIND of birth control, as the Catechism utilizes the term, then periodic continence is not necessarily contraception.

Josiah's entire presence within this thread is to repeat himself in claiming that the Catechism simultaneously approves of and condemns contraception, but he is using 'contraception' to refer to EVERY KIND of birth control, when the Catechism uses 'contraception' to refer to ONE KIND of birth control.

Click to expand...

cubinity said:

I'm all for your argument, which is why I want to see it start making sense.
I understand that the Wikipedia citation does not claim to mention every means of birth control (nor does the Catechism), and that contraception can be understood as one kind of birth control among many.

The question I asked is that if contraception is what is condemned in the Catechism, and we are defining contraception according to your quote of the Wikipedia article, then what Biblical bases does the Catechism have to condemn contraception, as no example given by the article references anything that appears in the Bible.

That is a big hole in your argument, and one I am trying to see if you can fill.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Apostolic Tradition


The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [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).

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

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

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).

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

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the sperm, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of sperm outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that sperm may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

Click to expand...

cubinity said:

I'm all for your argument, which is why I want to see it start making sense.
I understand that the Wikipedia citation does not claim to mention every means of birth control (nor does the Catechism), and that contraception can be understood as one kind of birth control among many.

The question I asked is that if contraception is what is condemned in the Catechism, and we are defining contraception according to your quote of the Wikipedia article, then what Biblical bases does the Catechism have to condemn contraception, as no example given by the article references anything that appears in the Bible.

That is a big hole in your argument, and one I am trying to see if you can fill.

Click to expand...

Human Experience


Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

For the sake of clarity, what do you believe I am arguing?

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

I'll try to answer your question. I found the below information that explains one of the basics as to why Catholicism teaches pro-creation which to Catholics intertwines why we should not practice birth control aka contraception.

Also, Catholics are not Sola-Scriptura and a lot of our dogmas are based on what the Apostles taught verbally and also the early Church Fathers taught Traditionally... verbally.

I hope this helps.

Click to expand...

D'Ann said:

Also, Catholics are not Sola-Scriptura and a lot of our dogmas are based on what the Apostles taught verbally and also the early Church Fathers taught Traditionally... verbally.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

I really quite doubt that the Apostles and the ECF's had anything to say concerning those means which are currently forbidden by the Catholic Church as contraceptive - or even anything related to family planning aka contraception.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

I really quite doubt that the Apostles and the ECF's had anything to say concerning those means which are currently forbidden by the Catholic Church as contraceptive - or even anything related to family planning aka contraception.

Click to expand...

cubinity said:

ivebeenshown has worked so hard to make the distinction that birth control and contraception are not the same thing, and yet here you say, "birth control aka contraception."

So, no, I'm not sure this helps at all.
Anyhow, thanks for trying.

Click to expand...

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Click to expand...

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Click to expand...

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]).

Click to expand...

cubinity said:

I guess I would say that I believe you are arguing that the Church condemns contraceptives while promoting birth control, but in doing so is not contradictory, as some critics have suggested.

As I mistaken? If so, please clarify your argument for me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

You are correct.

In the language of the Catechism, 'birth control'/'the regulation of births' refers to the various means of controlling births, including 'sterilization' and 'contraception' mentioned as separate things. Therefore, when the Catechism refers to 'contraception', it is not referring to 'birth control' as a whole but rather it is referring to specific means of birth control:

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).

The Catechism states that 'periodic continence' (aka NFP) is a morally acceptable means of birth control while 'sterilization' and 'contraception' are morally unacceptable.

I believe that it is very dishonest for one to claim that the Catechism is contradictory in condemning contraception while approving of period continence when the claimant is using the term 'contraception' to mean 'every means of birth control' because the Catechism does not use the term 'contraception' to mean 'every means of birth control.'

Click to expand...

ivebeenshown said:

You are correct.

In the language of the Catechism, 'birth control'/'the regulation of births' refers to the various means of controlling births, including 'sterilization' and 'contraception' mentioned as separate things. Therefore, when the Catechism refers to 'contraception', it is not referring to 'birth control' as a whole but rather it is referring to specific means of birth control:

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).

The Catechism states that 'periodic continence' (aka NFP) is a morally acceptable means of birth control while 'sterilization' and 'contraception' are morally unacceptable.

I believe that it is very dishonest for one to claim that the Catechism is contradictory in condemning contraception while approving of period continence when the claimant is using the term 'contraception' to mean 'every means of birth control' because the Catechism does not use the term 'contraception' to mean 'every means of birth control.'

Click to expand...

Rose_bud said:

:owow is this thread still going ... someone care to summarize..

Click to expand...

cubinity said:

Cool. I'm glad we clarified.
So, now that we are clearly on the same page about what you are arguing, are you interested at all in filling that hole in your argument I was discussing?

Click to expand...

JacktheCatholic said:

Same, same and same...


Seriously, it has been very circular.

Click to expand...