Church of England & Catholic Church?

Jason,

Let me bring up three subjects here and some great quotes. I hope that you will respond honestly to all three of them.

Contraceptive Unitive?

You stated that contraceptives do not do anything to the unitive portion of sexual intercourse. Tell me, how is that possible when by its very nature, artificial contraceptives is the direct denial of the giving of the self? Condoms, diaphrams, and other "devices" prevent the seed from entering the womb. How is the man thus giving himself completely to his wife? He is not; he is holding back, and for selfish reasons.

Genesis 38:9-10
"Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brothers widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too."

Onan did not give himself to his brother's window, as he was supposed to, and thus did not give himself to her, as the verses state, for selfish reasons. Note how the Lord was angered.

Masturbation

Is masturbation, by either sex, a sin? Why or why not?

Margaret Sanger
She is the founder of the American Birth Control League. Here's what she had to say:

"Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism." [1914]

Try reading up on her. She was one of the most influential people in getting contraceptives wide spread in the US.

And for some early other quotes:

Bernard Shaw: "Contraceptive practices are reciprocal masturbation."

St. Augustine: "Contraception makes a prostitute out of the wife and an adulterer of the husband."

Enjoy, and I look forward to your responses on these issues.

 

Deacon's Son:
I at one point thought about the Epispocial church, but them because of "women Priests" who, whichout exception supported abortion, and Spong not being kicked out of the church, I KNEW that place wasn't for me. I feel really sorry for all the good people that are in that church, but they need to look eslewhere.
James2

 

bump bump bump

 

Hi James,

You wrote, "What they need to do in my humble opinion, is to fire about 95 per cent of the seminary professors/theologians and model all there colleges and seminaries after a school like where Scott Hahn teaches."

Thanks for your compliment. This is where I'm earning my MA in Theology presently & Dr. Hahn is one of my Scripture professors.

God bless,

Carson

 

This is a nice try to avoid the topic a little. I would prefer to wait until we have established that contraception is bad because it is foreign or it stops procreative activities. I know...I know...you said you have already said 'foreign', but you then defend the procreative stance. Which is it? Both? Foreign? Procreative?

Don't worry, I will answer all of your questions once this has been explored a little more. I am not trying to avoid the questions, I just don't want to get totally sidetracked just yet (even though this thread already has )

In Christ,
jason

 

Carson:
Lucky you!!!! I've heard alot of good discussions from there, plus have head Scott Hahn's debates, read his books and I did not detect any of this unbiblical, fluffy-headed, mushey liberal nothink philosophy. I also like the guy from Christiandom (sp) College that speaks on EWTN from time to time.

I love my Reformed Baptist Church, but like I said before, I believe that alot of people will be amazed who they see in heaven when they get there. I've learned over the years to mellow out, and since God is Sovereign, He will save who he pleases, no matter what us mere mortals think.

One of the most misinterpreted scriptures in the entire bible is Matt 7:1-3 -- Judge not, lest ye be judged!! Boy, has that been abused. Of course, we judge all the time, and must judge. Taken in context with the rest of the bible, that tells me not to make a final judgement on one's salvation. Not to judge a person because he has just murdered his children is another thing. That would definitely make me think the guys was a lunatic. But for judging the final state of someone, no way.
Peace brother
James2

 

Hi all,

Now I know that there have been some accusations of "avoiding the question" as to why the Catholic Church condmens methods of artificial contraceptives but really, the burden of proof here lies not on the Catholic Church for upholding the ancient Christian teaching on the subject, but rather on Protestant churches for abandoning the Christian position only within the past seventy or so years.

I think that a quick restatement of the facts will serve us well here. They are as follows:
1) ALL mainstream Christian churches considered the use of artificial contraceptives to be a vile sin up until the year 1930 when the Anglican Communion approved the use of contraceptives in some circumstances, breaking with the traditional Christian teaching on the matter. It was at this point that the "floodgates were opened" as it were, and other Christian denominations began bowing to social pressures and reversed their stances on the sinfulness of artificial contraceptives.
2) Today, only the Catholic Church maintains the historic Christian teaching that the use of artificial contraceptives is a grave sin.

So, the question to be asked is not,"Why does the Catholic Church teach that the use of artificial contraceptives is a sin?" but rather, "Why did the other Christian churches reverse their position on the subject within the past 70 years?" This is the original question that seems to have been "avoided."

As for the official Catholic position on artificial contraceptives, I don't think that links to websites of Catholic organizations and/or individuals who disagree with the Church's position is even relevant. I mean, if I list links to "Catholics" who believe that the Church is wrong to condemn homosexual acts, is that proving the Church is wrong on the issue or that the Church is really not against such acts? Of course not.

For the record, I'll post the "official (and historic Christian) teaching" of the Church on the subjects of artificial contraceptives and Natural Family Planning (NFP).

"Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. 'Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to trasmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating eith the ove of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.'

"A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may want to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior dies not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.

"'By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood.'

"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 languae that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through conception, 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 rythym of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and human sexuality." (CCC 2367-2370).

Here's a look at how some prominent Reformers viewed the "sin of Onan", the only Biblical example of a contraceptive act (found in Genesis 38:9-10).

Martin Luther wrote:
"The 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 semen, 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." (Luther's Commentary on Genesis).

Likewise, John Calvin wrote:
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen 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. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses’ mouth, that Onan, as it where, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out part of the human race." (Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 38:10).

John Wesley wrote:
"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." (Wesley's Commentary on Genesis).

Once again, I reinterate the fact that the burden of proof lies not on the Catholic Church who merely uphold the historic Christian teaching on the subject of artificial contraception, but on the Protestant churches of the 20th Century for caving to societal pressure and reversing their position on the practice.

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ April 09, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

NOTE: there was no original question as to why protestant denominations changed, the original question was why is it wrong according to the catholic church. This has not been agreed upon yet.

This is the only scripture the catholic church can give for their position, but this scripture has been interpreted to show that :

1. Contraception is bad
2. Masturbation is bad
3. Homosexuality is bad

The correct interpretation is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

The reason Onan was struck dead is because he was not fulfilling is levite duty. This is the common Jewish interpretation today (and from what I know, the past...though the jews did use it to talk against masturbation as well). According to Jewish custom, when the older brother dies, the next youngest has a duty to give his brothers wife a child

As a matter of fact, the only organization that interprets it to mean no contraception is the catholic curch. The early protestant churches did subscribe to this, but that was through lack of understanding of Jewish custom. Once this was corrected, people realized what was really the problem with Onan.

So, the fact remains that I still don't know if the catholic position is because it is a foreign object only (GraceSaves...for one post) or if because it is not procreative (Deacon's son, trying2understand and GracesSaves in another post). I can see the posts and the thought processes leaning towards "not procreative" so I am going to assume from this point forward that the fact that it interrupts the procreative process, or (in other words) does not leave the possibility of conceiving a child.

Agreed?

In Christ,
jason

 

These are related. Please tell me why the physical act of masturbation is a sin or not. You'll see the relation. And how is the third item on the list unrelated? It's DIRECTLY RELATED.

Your response to these items will aid in me proving this.

I've already stated numerous times that it is both, for the foreign object kills procreation.

 

But that doesn't make it any less important. We can solve this mystery be finding out why YOUR church changed its views, as well as why the Catholic Church held on to its ancient position (check my St. Augustine quote).

Show me the Biblical verse that directly speaks out against abortion. You can't say abortion is murder, and use that as your Biblical defense, because that has not been agreed on by all parties around the world; it's still up for discussion. So where's your proof for that?

I've never heard it used in a homosexual discussion. However, this goes to show that masturbation is related to contraception, as to why these two are immoral.

Based on whose authority?

True enough. But why bother record the method that he did this? Did we really need to know that he "spilled his seed?"

I'm aware of this. But you fail to see how masturbation is directly related. It was Onan's seed that would have accomplished the goal. He wasted it. He had sex with his brother's widow (this was allowed), but he spilled his seed (taking the procreative element out; no doubt they were affectionate), and God killed him.

Waste the seed, which is meant for bearing children, and it is offensive to God. Use it to bear children; this was the intent.

This is such a cop out. The early reformers could reform the Catholic Church to make it the way it's "supposed" to be, but they have a lack of knowledge of Jewish customs? This makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about people devoting their entire lives to Scripture; and all of a sudden, on an important issue, they just didn't know about Jewish customs. Onan died for failing to impregnant the woman; how does that make the means by which he did this any less important?

Gotta through in "superstition" to make your case sound better, don't you? How in the world is it a superstition? The definition of the word doesn't fit the situation at all.

Thanks for that authoritative, final word.

No we don't. But the message had too much information to be unimportant. Onan, who had the RIGHT to have sex with his brother's wife, DID. But he deliberately took away the procreative element, and wasted his "seed." God killed him for not fullfilling his duty; this includes the means by which he did it.

So how does this apply to us universally? What do we take out of this passage?

Just as I said; he had sex for selfish reasons, disobeying his duty to bring forth offspring. He had the sex but without the giving of himself fully. Thanks.

No, it's not clear, in the sense you believe it is.

In fact, I see this as none other than a reason to twist Scripture to let you have a selfish practice be "okay with God" for you. You're now using the verse to justify your practice. Great.

That's because I had to better define my position for you; that doesn't mean I added something to the other posts that I didn't previously believe.

It's the willing use of a foreign element into sexual intercourse with the complete attempt at killing the procreative element of sex.

It's having sex without leaving the possibility of conceiving a child. NFP does not go against this, because the only time you are stopping a child from being conceived is through abstinance.

 

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the response. Sorry it has taken me this long to respond to your response but, to be honest I have a problem with consistency when it comes to the internet. I get really into it for a few days or a couple of weeks and then I get tired of it and "take a break" for a while.

Honestly, I'm in my "tired" period right now but it's only right to try and "finish what I started" (which was a couple of friendly disagreements here on the BB).

If this response isn't all it should be, forgive me because I am very sleepy right now. Anyway, for what it's worth - here goes.

You're right. I wasn't very clear in my wording. I was simply trying to say that the original question (on the topic of artificial contraceptives) should be why did other Christian churches change their teachings on the matter since the Anglican change at the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

In reference to Genesis 38:9-10, you wrote:

I totally agree that Onan was not fulfilling his duty by the Levitical law clearly recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. But, if you read this passage, you'll find that the penalty later instituted for breaking this law was public humiliation, not death.

It is Scripturally evident that Onan's crime was more than just his refusal to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law. Onan was killed by God for his crime. Why? Well, according to the historic Christian (and yes, Jewish) interpretation, it was because he violated God's Natural Law by "spilling his seed."

This has been the Christian view evident in virtually every orthodox Christian writing available prior to the 20th Century. At that time, some theologians began to reexamine the issue in the light of "modern" views on sexuality and worries of over-population and under the influence and social pressures of individuals such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

There is no argument to the fact that before about 1900, there was a general consensus that artificial contraceptives were considered to be evil and sinful by all orthodox Christian writers and theologians. If you (or anyone else) can produce an orthodox Christian writing from before 1900 that supports artificial birth control, please post it.

Oh, and this isn't the only Scripture that deals with birth control. I forgot about Deuteronomy 23:1, which condemns male sterilization. The very descriptive passage describes the methods of male sterilization of the day.

Actually, the "common Jewish interpretation" of this passage (Genesis 38:9-10) is in line with the Catholic (and traditional Christian) position on the matter-that Onan was killed by God not only for his refusal to complete his leviratic duty but also for "spilling his seed."

Some examples:

"[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and was therefore deserving of death." (Midrash, 1677).

"Emitting semen in vain is considered the same as bloodshed. One who does it deserves to be excommunicated and he will not be worthy of experiencing the Divine Presence. He is no better than an animal; he has no portion in the World to Come. This sin is worse than any other; one who does it defiles his seed in both this world and the next, and he is banned from the presence of the Divine. In some ways it is even worse than simple murder, since one is murdering his children through this act." (Sephardic Midrash, by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, 18th Century).

From all accounts, the historic Jewish interpretation of this passage is the same as the historic Christian one. The website you referenced also defended masturbation as not being a sin. Do you agree with their interpretation on this subject as well? Why or why not?

I am really amazed that you can promulgate a view that for roughly 1900 years, every Christian thinker that wrote (Catholic as well as Protestant) on the subject at hand, just "got it wrong." I am hesitant to believe that God would let his people go astray for so long on such an important issue.

It's more believable to me that Christianity has not been embarrassingly wrong on this subject but has instead, until the early 20th Century, maintained the right view. Of course many Christian churches chose to diverge from that path beginning with the Anglicans in 1930 and instead to bend to the pressures of society.

But aren't we called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world - to stand apart from the greater society on issues of morality? Shouldn't we follow Paul's plea that we "not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect." (Romans 2:12)?

In a discussion on this very subject, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong explained the Catholic position well when he wrote the following:

"Birth control does not equal contraception. This is what our society today cannot "see." We Catholics interpret the "contra" part of "contraception" very literally. We believe it is anti-child, anti-conception, anti-procreative purpose of marriage and sexual relations, anti-nature, in a harmful and sinful way. There are crucial distinctions to be made here. NFP, on the other hand, does not violate the natural order, because if the woman is fertile, and the couple wishes to avoid having another child (MOST IMPORTANTLY: for the "grave motives" Paul VI referred to, not frivolous, materialistic, or humanistic ones), that couple respects the natural order of things (and each other) and abstains.

The contracepting couple has sex anyway, and deliberately, by an act of will, thwarts the natural process and in effect prevents God from allowing a conception to occur if that is His will. It "ties the hands of God" and perverts natural processes in an attempt to manipulate them. NFP does no such thing, because it respects the natural order and natural law as created by God and doesn't entail deliberately separating the procreative and unitive (pleasurable) aspects and functions of marital sex."

God Bless, Jason.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ April 11, 2002, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

The link you posted, Jason, also condones sex between two people as long as they love each other.

"It should be noted that Judaism NEVER obsessed over the subject of masturbation the way some other traditions did, and that Judaism always recognized the holiness inherent in sex, provided it is done in a loving relationship between two people who are committed to each other."

No mention of marriage here, and this website openly condones masturbation as natural and healthy. Do you believe this is the case? If so, I'd question a lot of things with you. If not, I question why you use this site as a reference.

Here's some "safe sex" tips for kids who come to the website:

"If I were you I wouldn't worry about masturbating too much, if it makes you feel good then go for it."
-- Is this how God would feel about using your body?

"Beyond those pearls of wisdom have fun with your body."
-- So, I can do anything to/with my body, as long as I enjoy myself?

Great stuff.

[ April 11, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]