What does the Bible say about contraception?

Status
Not open for further replies.

She

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2006
991
65
✟8,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I've noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is very much against the use of condoms, even during pregnancy. Their reason for this is that: "it disrupts the unitive aspect of the marital act". They prefer for a couple to abstain rather than to use condoms. Is there anything in the Bible about this?
Where do they get it from?

[Sometimes condoms are necessary during pregnancy for medical reasons (to prevent miscarriage or thrush.) I am aware that ancient Hebrew women used "tampons" to prevent pregnancy. Historically, condoms were made from the intestines of animals, too.]
 

TreesNTrees

Active Member
Jan 3, 2006
234
6
64
✟7,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't have much to add at the moment, but thought I'd revive the post to see what verses people have learned about the subject. I'm aware of one section about a guy spilling his "seed" on the ground.

But if may be that God was more upset about the motive rather than the act.

How about if the gadgets are used for pleasure and not just the prevention? Do they have thoughts or doctrine on that aspect?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

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, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

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.)

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.

(Source: Catholic Answers, “Birth Control” (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001)
 
Upvote 0
C

catlover

Guest
She said:
I've noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is very much against the use of condoms, even during pregnancy. Their reason for this is that: "it disrupts the unitive aspect of the marital act". They prefer for a couple to abstain rather than to use condoms. Is there anything in the Bible about this?
Where do they get it from?

[Sometimes condoms are necessary during pregnancy for medical reasons (to prevent miscarriage or thrush.) I am aware that ancient Hebrew women used "tampons" to prevent pregnancy. Historically, condoms were made from the intestines of animals, too.]


Artificial contraception is a modern day blessing.

Many churches were against contraception, but many churches supported slavery and women not having the right to vote.
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
catlover said:
Artificial contraception is a modern day blessing.

Many churches were against contraception, but many churches supported slavery and women not having the right to vote.
Blessing?!?!?!? :scratch:

Pope Paul VI said:
"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"

How do you call that a blessing? :sick:
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Yeah right!

The Anglican church, for example, makes no pronouncements concerning contraception. Why? Because it believes that folk are adult enough to be making their own minds up.

As for Onan his sin was not simply failing to complete intercourse, his sin was rejecting the law which required him to marry his brother's wife (Levirate marriage.)

Contraception is a very good thing.
 
Upvote 0

jad123

Veteran
Dec 16, 2005
1,569
105
The moon
✟9,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lets see, I am 33 years old. I have 2 wonderful children (4 and 8). With that said I do not plan on having any more children for a variey of reasons. I have no intention of staying celibate with my wife for the rest of our lives. Give me a break.

By the way, I spent 30 years in the Catholic church and did not meet anyone who did not use birth control (my age only). I am going to make a very general statement here so do not bite my head off, I also find it very funny that when you look at a typical Catholic family you see 2-3 kids. Most of friends outside of the Catholic church have 4-6 kids.
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
jad123 said:
Lets see, I am 33 years old. I have 2 wonderful children (4 and 8). With that said I do not plan on having any more children for a variey of reasons. I have no intention of staying celibate with my wife for the rest of our lives. Give me a break.

By the way, I spent 30 years in the Catholic church and did not meet anyone who did not use birth control (my age only). I am going to make a very general statement here so do not bite my head off, I also find it very funny that when you look at a typical Catholic family you see 2-3 kids. Most of friends outside of the Catholic church have 4-6 kids.
Well, I have been Catholic my whole life and I have 5. None of my children are "planned". I take them as the Lord gives them to me. I consider children to be a blessing from God, and to prevent their conception is like asking God, "Please bless me and my family, just not with children." It turns your wife into an object of pleasure, not a lifelong partner.
 
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

jad123

Veteran
Dec 16, 2005
1,569
105
The moon
✟9,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scott_LaFrance said:
Well, I have been Catholic my whole life and I have 5. None of my children are "planned". I take them as the Lord gives them to me. I consider children to be a blessing from God, and to prevent their conception is like asking God, "Please bless me and my family, just not with children." It turns your wife into an object of pleasure, not a lifelong partner.

Like I said I was making a general comment on my experience. You do make a good point and I truly respect you following the teachings of your church. I do not necesarily agree that I am asking God to bless me but not with children. Contraceptives are not 100%. If the godd Lord wants me to have more I am sure that will happen. BUT, I am firm believer that God has blessed us with free will and the knowledge of medicine to use as necessary. If you are having a heart attack and nitro glycerin will stop it are you not interfering with God?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
jad123 said:
One question for my Catholic friends. What is the difference between abstaining to limit pregnancy and using another contraceptive?
Simple, it keeps the sexual act open to the possibility of conception whenever it is used. It promotes total physical and spiritual unity of the marriage. The two truely become one. In an artificial contraception case, a barrier is implemented to prevent true unity.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
jad123 said:
I do not necesarily agree that I am asking God to bless me but not with children. Contraceptives are not 100%. If the godd Lord wants me to have more I am sure that will happen.

Contraceptives are putting a wall between you and God that God will not violate. He will not violate your free will choice to contracept any new life he would otherwise create.

If contraceptives fail it’s not because it was God’s will you conceived, it was because contraceptives are human invention subject to error and failure.

You accepting the limitations, the fact that on rare occasion they fail or when not used correctly is not being “open to life”. It is just recognizing the limitations they have and accepting the consequence of your own actions and choices. It in reality is not leaving anything in God’s hands, it is still all in your hands instead.

Other people who are not as responsible or as moral to accept the result of their own actions and choices use the next option when contraceptives fail and that is abortion. Thus we rightfully link abortion to it’s sibling contraceptives.

To say you are open to life while using contraceptives because if God wants he can intercede is a contradiction and putting the Lord God to the test.

Your will is to stop new life, that is why you contracept. God will not violate your free will.

If you concive, like you said, it's becuase contraceptives are not 100%.

BUT, I am firm believer that God has blessed us with free will and the knowledge of medicine to use as necessary. If you are having a heart attack and nitro glycerin will stop it are you not interfering with God?

Using contraceptives as an example isn’t what medicine is and it is not what medicine does. Contraceptives do not heal us of illness, pregnancy is not a illness.

You are correct, we have free will. We can abuse our gifts and abilities as well as use them for good. Contraceptives is not an example of us using our knowledge for good.

Contraceptives are not a cure for anything, they are not medicine and can not/should not be compared to actual medicine that heals the body.

They are the opposite, it's function is to take what works fine and cause it to no longer do the job it was designed to do. It's intent and goal is to leave God out making us our own God deciding what is best for us.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟40,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
jad123 said:
One question for my Catholic friends. What is the difference between abstaining to limit pregnancy and using another contraceptive?
With abstinence there is no abuse, no distortion, no altercation of the act because frankly there is no act taking place when you abstain.

When the act does take place between two married people the act is preserved in all it's integrity, no chemicals, no devices, no foreign materials, no mechanical interruption, no non functioning through self mutilating organs designed to prevent what would otherwise happen if these things were not there.
 
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

lismore

Maranatha
Oct 28, 2004
20,687
4,359
Scotland
✟245,740.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Malachi 2:15 NIV
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.

Genesis 9:7 NIV
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

Psalm 127: 3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

smijos

Active Member
May 23, 2006
25
1
✟7,650.00
Faith
Christian
First off - don't post on this thread if you're going to write something disrespectful of your Christian brother who has a huge argument and give absolutely no argument of your own.

Now my thoughts...

I read a post that contraceptives turn your wife into an object of lust...are there any women reading this thread? I hope not, because you basically just said that sex is one-sided. Sex exists for a husband and wife to express love to each other – read Song of Solomon – you’ll see that sexual love can take many forms other than intercourse. If sexual forms other than intercourse are promoted, childbearing is not of primary importance, therefore contraceptives are perfectly acceptable.

Also many couples cannot bear children. Does this mean they should stop having sex? Of course not! The primary purpose of sex is to become one flesh (mentioned five times in the Bible) – relating back to the way in which men and women were created – this one flesh does not mean children, it means sex (it’s related to prostitution in the NT). Just as Eve was formed from Adam, Eve returns to Adam. And yes, it is a beautiful, intimate, expression of love.

This has absolutely nothing to do with childbearing. And as far as the argument that a barrier is placed between men and women – ever heard of the pill, or the patch? No barriers there!
 
Upvote 0
C

catlover

Guest
Benedicta00 said:
Contraceptives are putting a wall between you and God that God will not violate. He will not violate your free will choice to contracept any new life he would otherwise create.

If contraceptives fail it’s not because it was God’s will you conceived, it was because contraceptives are human invention subject to error and failure.

You accepting the limitations, the fact that on rare occasion they fail or when not used correctly is not being “open to life”. It is just recognizing the limitations they have and accepting the consequence of your own actions and choices. It in reality is not leaving anything in God’s hands, it is still all in your hands instead.

Other people who are not as responsible or as moral to accept the result of their own actions and choices use the next option when contraceptives fail and that is abortion. Thus we rightfully link abortion to it’s sibling contraceptives.

To say you are open to life while using contraceptives because if God wants he can intercede is a contradiction and putting the Lord God to the test.

Your will is to stop new life, that is why you contracept. God will not violate your free will.

If you concive, like you said, it's becuase contraceptives are not 100%.



Using contraceptives as an example isn’t what medicine is and it is not what medicine does. Contraceptives do not heal us of illness, pregnancy is not a illness.

You are correct, we have free will. We can abuse our gifts and abilities as well as use them for good. Contraceptives is not an example of us using our knowledge for good.

Contraceptives are not a cure for anything, they are not medicine and can not/should not be compared to actual medicine that heals the body.

They are the opposite, it's function is to take what works fine and cause it to no longer do the job it was designed to do. It's intent and goal is to leave God out making us our own God deciding what is best for us.

God gave us a brain to use. A couple knows how many children they can handle psychologically as well as monetarily.
 
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

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
smijos said:
First off - don't post on this thread if you're going to write something disrespectful of your Christian brother who has a huge argument and give absolutely no argument of your own.

Now my thoughts...

I read a post that contraceptives turn your wife into an object of lust...are there any women reading this thread? I hope not, because you basically just said that sex is one-sided. Sex exists for a husband and wife to express love to each other – read Song of Solomon – you’ll see that sexual love can take many forms other than intercourse. If sexual forms other than intercourse are promoted, childbearing is not of primary importance, therefore contraceptives are perfectly acceptable.

Also many couples cannot bear children. Does this mean they should stop having sex? Of course not! The primary purpose of sex is to become one flesh (mentioned five times in the Bible) – relating back to the way in which men and women were created – this one flesh does not mean children, it means sex (it’s related to prostitution in the NT). Just as Eve was formed from Adam, Eve returns to Adam. And yes, it is a beautiful, intimate, expression of love.

This has absolutely nothing to do with childbearing. And as far as the argument that a barrier is placed between men and women – ever heard of the pill, or the patch? No barriers there!
Yes there is, its a chemical one.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.