Contraception

[Bryne]

As we both know, the LCMS has NEVER (at any time since it's founding in 1847) taken an official stand on this - before or after 1930.

This statement really angers me. How in the world do you know what I know? You are assuming something about me that you have no way of knowing...and publically stating it as fact...without even asking me or trying to find out if it is true or not. And you are using this assumption to make me look less than honest during a debate.

I do NOT know that the LCMS has never taken an official stand on this. I never claimed to know it, one way or the other. I have no knowlege about this at all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am somewhat surprised by the negativity towards NFP that I have seen here.

Me too.

 

[Hentenza]

I do not know the reliability of those numbers but regardless the RCC teachings are the RCC teachings whether the congregation follows them.

The study was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and validated practically identical results from an earlier study.

It has been my observation and experience that the RCC has many parishoners that are ignorant to the RCC teachings because in the past the Catechism was not taught as well as it should have. But the RCC has been taking steps to better catechized their members. As a catechism teacher myself I see this and know that the next generation is already better catechized than their parents and even grandparents.

Jack, are you seriously suggesting that the majority of sexually active (married) women are ignorant of the catechism?

 

[cobweb]

It has been found that contraceptives are abortive as well. Let me know if you want some sources.

I really don't see how that it is biologically possible if you are talking about condoms or vasectomy. I see clear theological reasons not to use both, but I'm trying to figure out how it could abort after conception.

I know that tubal ligation carries a risk of ectopic pregnancy (which is one reason I wouldn't do it).

I'll read your sources though.

I've used NFP for over 4 year without any problems.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This statement really angers me. How in the world do you know what I know? You are assuming something about me that you have no way of knowing...and publically stating it as fact...without even asking me or trying to find out if it is true or not. And you are using this assumption to make me look less than honest during a debate.

I do NOT know that the LCMS has never taken an official stand on this. I never claimed to know it, one way or the other. I have no knowlege about this at all.

Sorry! I didn't mean to imply anything, and I guess should have worded all that better....

As I understand it, SEVERAL LCMS members have - over the years - expressed concerns and even disagreements over some (if not all) forms of contraception. I know that. And it's not hard to find some of these statements of these INDIVIDUALS expressing their INDIVIDUAL opinions.

But as I TRIED to convey, such is never the official position of a denomination. My brother in law is Catholic - but I don't agree that my quoting him would be the expression of the eternal, official, dogmatic position of the RCC - it's just HIS position. I could quote from my Catholic priest and/or deacon (and have - rarely) but I'd NEVER suggest that they ARE the RCC and whatever they say IS the RCC speaking.

All denominations have ways of OFFICIALLY speaking. The LCMS does this by synodical convention resolutions. We don't do it by radio programs on "the Lutheran Hour" (which isn't even an LCMS ministry - officially or otherwise, it's a ministry of "Lutheran Hour Ministries"). Quoting from Calvin is not an official statement from any of the over 300 Reformed denominations (of which Calvin founded and headed NONE). Quoting me would just be quoting me - not The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Do you agree?

Sorry for the offense; none intended!


I don't deny that there were some INDIVIDUALS before 1930 that were opposed to any contraceptive measures (the ethic of "just have sex - leave the consequences to God" or "Just have sex - trust God for what happens") seems to have once been a perspective. I don't know how common. I'm not SURE there were a lot of effective alternatives.... But, IN MY OPINION, this is not the same as the often made Catholic apologetic (seen all over the net) that "ALL denominations (or even all Protestants) in all the years before 1930 were morally opposed to all contraceptive practices - and thus, poof, in 1930 - ALL non RCC denominations made a 180 and are all now pro-contraceptive practices." I just have found nothing to support that as being historical. There MAY have been one denomination (out of the 18,000 to 50,000 Protestant denominations Catholics seem to claim exists) that had an official stance before 1930 (and not MUCH before that), and I've seen evidence for 4 or 5 that today officially embrace all contraceptive practices. But this hardly seems to support the apologetic.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, the LCMS has never taken any official stand on this - before or after 1930. That statement use to be clearly made at the LCMS official website - but that whole section of it seems to have been deleted recently (I couldn't find it anyway).

 

[sunlover1]

I think this is what people do... they analyze their personal situation and then try to make the best choice.

For the RCC we have moral guidance from the Church on these matters and when understood as the RCC describes it then NFP is what the RCC finds as the obvious choice. It still leaves God as the author of Life and not man.

She just made it clear that she uses NFP to keep from becoming pregnant.
What's with this "we RCC leave God as author" when you do too interfere
by not having sex lol.
How can RCCs point their fingers at anyone who's not rcc saying that they're
evil to use a condom, when they too are merely analyzing heir own
personal situation and making what they feel is the best choice...
They should burn in lust when they have a spouse right there? They should
deny their spouse? Or they should have a baby every 10/11 months?
married 20 years with 20 kids lol.

 

[Bryne]

They should burn in lust when they have a spouse right there? They should
deny their spouse? Or they should have a baby every 10/11 months?
married 20 years with 20 kids lol.

Anyone who can't deal with putting off sex with their spouse for a few days has a serious problem. What if your spouse is sick...is burning in lust until he or she gets better really a problem? The Bible speaks of abstaining from sex for a short time in order to focus on prayer or fasting...so abstaining for 5 days or so out of a month really isn't a bad thing.

 

[patricius79]

I really don't see how that it is biologically possible if you are talking about condoms or vasectomy. I see clear theological reasons not to use both, but I'm trying to figure out how it could abort after conception.

I know that tubal ligation carries a risk of ectopic pregnancy (which is one reason I wouldn't do it).

I'll read your sources though.

I've used NFP for over 4 year without any problems.

good for you.

I suppose Jack was talking about the Pill, which is abortifacient in both forms

 

[Bryne]

Sorry! I didn't mean to imply anything, and I guess should have worded all that better....

As I understand it, SEVERAL LCMS members have - over the years - expressed concerns and even disagreements over some (if not all) forms of contraception. I know that. And it's not hard to find some of these statements of these INDIVIDUALS expressing their INDIVIDUAL opinions.

But as I TRIED to convey, such is never the official position of a denomination. My brother in law is Catholic - but I don't agree that my quoting him would be the expression of the eternal, official, dogmatic position of the RCC - it's just HIS position. I could quote from my Catholic priest and/or deacon (and have - rarely) but I'd NEVER suggest that they ARE the RCC and whatever they say IS the RCC speaking.

All denominations have ways of OFFICIALLY speaking. The LCMS does this by synodical convention resolutions. We don't do it by radio programs on "the Lutheran Hour" (which isn't even an LCMS ministry - officially or otherwise, it's a ministry of "Lutheran Hour Ministries"). Quoting from Calvin is not an official statement from any of the over 300 Reformed denominations (of which Calvin founded and headed NONE). Quoting me would just be quoting me - not The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Do you agree?

Sorry for the offense; none intended!

Apology accepted.

The fact that there wasn't an official statement really doesn't mean that they weren't against it. There was widespread agreement among theologians about the issue and an official stance really wasn't seen as necessary. Kind of like how there wasn't an official statement against abortion, either...until the 70's.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The fact that there wasn't an official statement really doesn't mean that they weren't against it.

It also means they weren't for it.

It means there was no official stand.
That's it, that's all.
Still isn't.


That NEVER keeps individuals from having personal opinions (however passionate) but that's the personal opinion of an individual - not the denominational position. I have a hunch if you asked most LCMS people if it's okay to drink coffee - you'd get a large percentage saying "yes" but it's another thing to say it's the official LCMS Synodical position that it's okay to drink coffee (could be, but I doubt it). Ironcially, Catholic often get upset when you quote CATHOLICS on something - strongly insisting that what PEOPLE say is not necessary the Church's position (and they are correct), but then they reverse their rubric in all other situations.

Just a voice for a "level playing field." And a voice for an equal treatment of apologetics.....


Thank you for the forgiveness.



.

 

[cobweb]

good for you.

I suppose Jack was talking about the Pill, which is abortifacient in both forms

I already stated that hormonal birth control was forbidden (because it is abortive). If he was speaking of the pill... then I am really baffled by his reply to my post.

 

[sunlover1]

Anyone who can't deal with putting off sex with their spouse for a few days has a serious problem.

Who designed us with strong desire for each other?
So strong that Paul had a remedy AGAINST burning in lust
which was... was....marriage....
And now we have folks saying NOT to come together during
ovulation ...when God says not to DENY .. (Just the opposite)
ANd then pointing fingers at those who do NOT deny their
spouse but use a condom so that they can have some form
of family planning.
So where's the logic?
Are we now calling evil good?

What if your spouse is sick...is burning in lust until he or she gets better really a problem?

What if your spouse is not sick?

The Bible speaks of abstaining from sex for a short time in order to focus on prayer or fasting...so abstaining for 5 days or so out of a month really isn't a bad thing.

Abstaining during ovulation to prevent fertility and abstaining to devote yourself to prayer are not the same thing. It was clearly a clause for one
thing only and that wasnt ovulation lol.
5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

 

[sunlover1]

Fertility awareness is considered a form of contraception. NFP uses fertility awareness. Therefore NFP can be used for contraception. However, there is much more involved than just preventing pregnancy.

It might be clearer to simply say that it isn't artificial birth control. But really, it all comes down to how you define contraception. whether or not you do accept that NFP is a natural form of contraception or prefer some other term, what is happening is basically the same thing. I see nothing objectionable about it at all. I have used NFP for years and would never use artificial birth control.

I see nothing objectionable about nfp OR using condoms..

I am somewhat surprised by the negativity towards NFP that I have seen here.

Who has posted against NFP?
I said that the ideal is to let GOD be the author..
As Leah and Rachel did for instance.
That's where I got my own model of family planning.
I just left it totally in God's hands...
He is, after all, faithful.

But i have nothing at all against people making that
choice for themselves and I still dont see what's evil
about using a condom.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

She just made it clear that she uses NFP to keep from becoming pregnant.

... making it a contraceptive birth control method.

What's with this "we RCC leave God as author" when you do too interfere

... exactly.

I could understand if the RCC officially embraced what was a common (UNOFFICIAL) Catholic position before the sexual revolution of the 1960's - "have sex - and leave the responsibility up to God," "have sex - trust God!" I can "see" the morality there (I also can see the moral problem there).

But that's NOT the current RCC position (OFFICIALLY now). It is that couple can (and probably should) have sex! AND YES - do things contraceptively. "We'll teach you how!"

And then condemn other denominations for not joining them in this promotion of contraception and for not teaching birth control at their church?





.

 

[patricius79]

... making it a contraceptive birth control method.

... exactly.

I can't agree there. I can agree that one can abstain from something for a bad reason

but how can one know that not having sex during the fertile period is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself fully to the other sexually?

 

[Vendetta]

You should have READ these before you provided the links....

NO mention of even ONE denomination - Protestant or otherwise - before 1930. In any of the links you provided. Not one.

My apologies, I wasn't aware you wanted the text from a literal synod or its equivalent.

I have no idea what "lolwut" means....

Urban Dictionary: lolwut

No, the 3 links never so much as MENTIONED any Protestant denomination with any stand on anything prior to 1930. I followed the links and I read the article in entirety. I'm sure you were hoping I wouldn't.

In fact, I was hoping you would read them. My error was misunderstanding what it was you wanted to see. What I was posting for you to read was not the type of proof you had requested.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I can't agree there. I can agree that one can abstain from something for a bad reason

but how can one know that not having sex during the fertile period is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself fully to the other sexually?

What?

What I posted is that DOING something contraceptively makes what is done contraceptive.

Yes - I AM under the impression (perhaps wrong - my Catholic teachers were wrong at some points, I've found) that prior to the sexual revolution, Catholics tended to embrace a "have sex - take no responsibility" approach; the "morality" was, "have sex - trust God." I DO understand the morality there (not sure I agree with it; I TEND to think that purposefully rejecting responsbility for one's actions is often immoral) - but that's all moot today, that's not the RCC's stand now (OFFICIALLY).

The RCC today says that couples CAN (and probably should) act contraceptively: have sex (don't be a sexless couple) but yes that can be in ways that are purposefully contraceptive - in ways that at least lessen the chances of conception (contra - ceptive). It even has a fave method for doing that (it can also be used for the opposite, BTW) - it's own fave birth control method, and it is VERY into that, even teaching contraception classes (as was done at my parish, required if you wanted to get married in the Church).




.

 

[patricius79]

What?

What I posted is that DOING something contraceptively makes what is done contraceptive.

which is why NOT doing something during the fertile period--namely, not having sex--is not contraception

there is a big difference between practicing self-control out of a sense of prudence and having sex whenever a couple wishes while using a condom, e.g.

the sociological data reflects this:

Protestant nurse Jill Stanek writes:

Marital bliss? Dr. Janet Smith reports, “ In fact, the divorce rate doubled between 1965 and 1975. Until the mid-1960s it was 25%. By mid-1975 it went up to 50%. Robert Michaels, a demographer from Stanford, discovered that as the contraceptive pill became more and more available, that line was parallel to the divorce line. The divorce rate leveled off in 1975, when every woman who wanted access to the pill had it. In his statistical scientific investigations, Michaels attributed three reasons why he thinks the use of contraceptives is tied to the massive divorce rate
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/C...nAnalyzed2.htm

 

[sunlover1]

but how can one know that not having sex during the fertile period is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself fully to the other sexually?

What is amoral about using a condom?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is amoral about using a condom?

I think the typical RCC answer is: You are purposely doing something so that you can have sex in your marriage BUT do so in ways that will lessen the changes of conception, it's contraceptive!" Yeah - the same is true for what the RCC is so into these days (quite uniquely).