Skip to comments.The Washington Post on the evil of contraception
Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:
It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the scientific production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committees report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be careful and restrained is preposterous.
Just a little reminder to us from history. Eighty years ago, even secular newspaper editors understood that which the majority of Christians today reject.
6 “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(The site says it should be “motor,” not “mutor.”)
Very apropos comment.
I will ping this out in a bit.
Contraception is the gorilla in the room that hardly anyone wants to look at. Even though it’s going “ooga booga” and jumping around....
Statements by the Churches and the Secular Press Condemning Artificial Contraception Following the Anglican's Lambeth Conference of 1930
The Lutheran Church
* "Birth Control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th century renewal of pagan bankruptcy."
Dr. Walter A. Maier, Concordia Lutheran Theological
Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
The Methodist Church
* "The whole disgusting [birth control] movement rests on the assumption of man's sameness with the brutes. ... Its [the Federal Council of Churches] deliverance on the matter of birth control has no authorization from any churches representing it, and what it has said I regard as most unfortunate, not to use any stronger words. It certainly does not represent the Methodist Church, and I doubt if it represents any other Protestant Church in what it has said on this subject."
Bishop Warren Chandler, Methodist Episcopal Church South,
April 13, 1931.
The Presbyterian Church
* "Its [Federal Council of Churches] recent pronouncement on birth control should be enough reason, if there were no other, to withdraw from support of that body, which declares that it speaks for the Presbyterian and other Protestant churches in ex cathedra pronouncements."
The Presbyterian, April 2, 1931.
The Catholic Church
* "In order that she [the Catholic Church] may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, she raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, Section 4,
* "Since a week ago last Saturday we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the very logic of their ways and in fifty or one hundred years there will be only the Church and paganism. We will be left to fight the battle alone and we will."
Father Fulton J. Sheen of the Catholic University of America.
"Comments ..... and Comments On the Report of The Federal
Council of Churches of Christ in America." The American Birth
Control League's Birth Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4
(April 1931), page 143.
* "Liberal Protestantism is really (so it seems to us and we speak with all respect for the noble solicitude it displays for human welfare, its passion for the building up of a better order of society) a new religion, but it is no longer Protestantism it is pagan humanitarianism, it is the creed of social service built on shifting and unstable experiments, but not on the demonstrated facts of materialistic science."
Editorial from The Commonweal of March 29, 1931. "Comments .....
and Comments on the Report of The Federal Council of Churches
of Christ in America." The American Birth Control League's Birth
Control Review, Volume XV, Number 4 (April 1931), page 142.
The Secular Press
* "Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be "careful and restrained" is preposterous."
The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.
When I ran the words through Google, it said, “Do you mean ‘motor’?”
I wouldn’t know ... I read Latin only because it looks like Spanish and French!
The Anglican Bishop's Contrasting 1920 and 1930 Statements on Contraception
Statement of the 1920 Lambeth Conference
-- "We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers physical, moral, and religious thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which in the name of science and religion encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control."
Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference
-- "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipleship and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control for motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."
How many Christians like that do you know?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I’m absolurely pro-life and anti-abortion. I am also a Christian who is fairly familiar with the contents of the Bible.
I simply fail to recall the verses or passages that prohibit contrception. And while I follow the reasoning, I am unsure how sound the assumptions are.
I’d be more than willing tolisten to your thoughts, as I could well be wrong
Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into 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."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."
Here are several previous threads on the subject:
“mutor” is correct.
“motor” would be “I am set in motion, shaken, stirred.”— a rare verb.
“(non) mutor” is “I am (not) changed.”
(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)
191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).
307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes
"[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" (6:20)
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).
325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] 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"
375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).
391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).
393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).
419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence
"I am supposing, then, although 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] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).
522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] 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 women 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" (1:12).
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into 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."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )
1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)
"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II
Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)
1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)
1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church
"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)." (2399)
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The gorilla in the room from which many people want to avert their eyes. Excellent history of what used to be the cultural norm - contraception was considered anti-family and an offense to God. Contraception meant an open door and welcome mat to sex outside of marriage. Well, they were right.
I wonder why the Anglican Bishop changed his message in ten years. I assume it was the same bishop. What a pansy wimp. Very few people want to admit that contraception is the evil that it is.
I’ll have to look more closely into this.
See Little Lost Lambeth from the Sept/Oct 1998 Envoy Magazine:
...The battle between the philosophies continues to be fought down to this very day: the battle between the eugenics, advocated in seminal form by the Church of England, and the natural law, upheld by an agnostic who saw the preposterous conclusions to which the contraceptive philosophy must inevitably lead.
The agnostic was Aldous Huxley; his book, Brave New World, would constitute not only an incredibly prophetic description of the contracepting society, but also a deft parody of the Christian church which first legalized the idea. Prior to 1930, contraception had been uniformly condemned by every Christian denomination in the world since the death of Christ.
By the early 1920s, Margaret Sanger and several of her English lovers were touting contraception and involuntary sterilization as a way to limit the breeding of the "human weeds," as Sanger called them: the insane, the mentally-retarded, criminals, and people with Slavic, Southern Mediterranean, Jewish, black or Catholic backgrounds (ironically, Sanger was herself raised by a Catholic mother). Though most supporters of atheistic rationalist scientific progress don't advertise it, Hitler's racial purity schemes were nothing more than the application of 1920s "cutting-edge" biology. When this attitude encountered Christianity, the results were uniformly explosive. Ever since 1867, Anglican bishops had been meeting roughly every ten years at Lambeth Palace, London, in order to discern how best to govern their Church. Mounting eugenics pressures had required the bishops in both the 1908 and the 1920 conferences to fiercely condemn contraception. But the constant eugenics drumbeat would not let up.
The 1930 conference brought even greater internal challenges; many of the people advising the bishops were eugenicists, indeed, at least one attendee, the Reverend Doctor D.S. Bailey, would be both a member of the International Eugenics Society and an active participant in the conference.
Between the general mood of society and the insistence of advisors, the Anglican bishops were placed under extreme pressure to allow some form of artificial contraception. On August 14, 1930, after heated debate, they voted 193 to 67, with 14 abstentions, to permit the use of contraceptives at the discretion of married couples. The decision rocked the Christian world it was the first time any Christian Church had dared to attack the underlying foundations of the sacred marital act, the act in which another image of God was brought into creation through the parents' participation in co-creation with God. Pope Pius XI, deeply saddened, issued Casti Connubii, just four short months later on December 31, 1930, reiterating the constant Christian teaching that artificial contraception was forbidden as an intrinsically evil act.
H.G. Wells' stories of a scientific utopia combined with the publication of the Lambeth decision and Casti Connubii to fire Huxley's imagination. What would a society which fully endorsed contraception look like? Though Huxley was by no means a Catholic, he possessed a keen intellect and an incisive pen.
His conclusions were soon plain society as we understood it would fail to survive. Writing in the grand tradition of English parody, he constructed a wickedly accurate portrayal of the contraceptive society, written so as to ensure his English audience would recognize his portrayal of the Church which had set them on the road toward it. In so doing, he inadvertently created an allegory which supports Catholic teaching.
How very perceptive of you to know whether a childless couple has no children because of their use of birth control or they're infertile. Just by seeing them, eh?
Or do you go up and ask them why they have no children?
Or do they just volunteer the information to you or did you hear it through the grapevine?
And people wonder why so many modern young people have fallen away from the Bible’s teachings? Onan pulling out is supposed to be worse than adultery? Worse even than incest?
The human male makes and discards ~200 million sperm per day, and yet Onan pulling out is supposed to be akin to killing a son before he is born?
Order of God in procreation? Honestly. How can anyone escape the conclusion that these writers were railing against a reproductive system they did not fully understand?
The point is quite clear “because they use birth control”.
I carefully wrote "divorced and re-married". In Catholic doctrine, a person who is divorced from a valid marriage and re-marries, is living in perptetual mortal sin, which even confession can't remove. Only separation from the second marriage, or death of the first spouse AND CONFESSION, can remove the sin. Therefore, they can't be saved while they remain in that condition. (if they die with ONE mortal sin unconfessed)
Your rational is quite silly that you know what only those 2 people know.....You must be pulling our leg to get some nasty reply from someone....you were asked intelligent questions by metmom and I also want to know HOW you know these things...LOL
They also have no sanctifying grace from God. The Holy Ghost does not make His aboad in a soul in mortal sin. That is why I said "I know they have not God's grace".
I know because they tell me they use birth control. They argue in it’s favor, and even criticize people who have children or “too many children”. I’ve been married 8 years and have 5 children, the subject of birth control, is like the first thing brought up by strangers that come up to us in public places. They volunteer the information.
Also, the sadness of not being able to have children or less than they would have been taken on had God sent them is always brought up.
Walk around with 5 properly dressed, well behaved children and the world sees something unique, today. That's what they will talk about. They know we are Catholic by what they see. "By their deeds you shall know them".
Remember the movie (the book) Cheaper by the Dozen, the original real one about the Gilbreth's? The public's subject of discussion around them, was always about birth. Same thing happens with my family.
I survived 5 children in their teens at the same time...big deal...I don't ever remember telling anyone about my and my husbands bedroom sessions or weather we used BC or not. It never came up even with friends...who do you hang around with for goodness sake..
Regarding Christian Europe, and how they viewed births, the gift of children, birth control, and the time when it was abhorred, through the time it was starting to become a fashion, and it's development till it became almost the norm (1880's till 1940's), I highly recommend the book:
All for the Love of Mothers - Memoirs of a Catholic Midwife by Lisbeth Burger, like 40 short stories about the real life experiences of a Catholic midwife in a small German village. You won't be able to put down the book till you've read it from cover to cover. Fascinating to be placed in what appears today as another world, and it was just 100+ years ago. The world has been slow boiled, cooked, into something else, and no one noticed it.
Do you think artificial birth control is acceptable under certain situations?
See the link, The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.
The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to expose what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles.
If you think the root cause of legalized abortion is no big deal, then we probably don't have much common ground on which to discuss the evils of our day.
Desire for the perfection of our neighbour is, doubtless, very good; the pain that is felt interiorly 202at the sight of his defects is good also, provided it proceeds from a pure desire for his perfection, But with all this there must needs be mingled much secret self-complacency, confidence in ones own superior light, and severity towards ones neighbour. Zeal such as this cannot, you must well understand, come from God; it is an illusion of the devil, hurtful to yourself and to others.
In the second place I command you never to speak of God, or of anything good, unless in a spirit of humility and meekness, in an amiable and gracious manner, with moderation and 203encouragement, and never with bitterness and severity, or in a way to wound and repel those who hear you, because, although you may only say what is in the Gospel and in the best books, I believe that in your present state of mind you might say it very badly and in such a way as only to do harm.
If you have nothing kind to say keep silent, and leave the care of deciding to others. They can avoid better than you too much laxness, and will be exact without being severe. If exactitude be praiseworthy, severity is blamable, it does nothing but revolt people instead of convincing them, and embitter their souls instead of gaining them. As much as true meekness, with the help of God, has power to repel evil and to win to good, so much has an excessive harshness power to make goodness difficult and evil incurable. The first is edifying, the latter, destructive.
Thank you for posting that.
My pleasure. Lord save us from the triumphalism of an indiscreet zealot.
My goodness, you are a mine of infortation.
This is exremely important and I hope many ping listees will read this.
Without doubt the haters of life - eugenecists - were the driving force behind the accepts of contraception. Fie on the bishops for surrendering to evil. Why did they have advisors who were non-believers in the first place? Why did they listen to evil godless men?
What does that have to do with what I posted? All i can think of is that you think that I go up to people and ask them how it is they don’t have more children? I don’t get it.
And the question was... *How do you know WHY they’re childless?*
Seems to me that there is a lot of judgment going on unless you somehow know that to be a fact. Either you asked them or they volunteered the information to you. You can’t tell just by looking.
And considering that some people are childless because of infertility, it’d be a pretty crass thing to go up and ask them.
Well, then, they're totally screwed by your theology because there's no way of getting out of that condition.
Jesus said that if you look at a woman to lust after her in your heart, you've committed adultery with her already. That's no different in principle, because divorce also causes people to commit adultery.
This is what the works based religion of Catholicism will get you. Hell with no mercy from God.
FWIW, please provide Scripture verses to show where God distinguishes between mortal sin and venial sin.
You must be from another era. I was married in 2001. Today they have Viagra, Prep H, and the pill advertised everywhere. They have explicit sex acts on TV for children to see. Public figures publish daily "their bedroom habits". Nobodies volunteer "their bedroom habits" on Facebook, pictures and all. Today, people telling you that they use contraceptives is no longer considered "volunteering their bedroom habits".
Say hello to 2010, welcome to the chaos!
I don't either. It never comes up in any of the discussions I've ever had with people.
People who are infertile admit to that and people who use birth control don't announce it because of people like verdugo.
And you know what, verdugo, it's between them and God. It's nobody else's business. Not mine. Not goat granny's. And certainly not yours.
Who put you in place of God anyway? Instead of judging them, why don't you pray for them? They need that more by your judgment.
Protestants teach that everyone should read the Bible and interpret it for himself. As a result, they do not even agree within their own ranks as to just what is to be believed.
The truth is there is no such religion as Protestant, as each "Protestant" is just one person making up their own religion as they go along, they're all winging it, to themselves they are more infallible than a pope, they are their own god.
No point in discussing anything about the true Faith with a Protestant. If I were to correct the misunderstanding in ONE person for ONE question of life, there would still be millions of other errors to deal with in that ONE person.
Ones Protestants beliefs are unique to him, as Protestantism has no beliefs that require adherence, each Protestant basically invents his own church of one. That is not the case with Catholics. The Catholic Church has doctrines that are unchangeable, and a Catholic MUST believe them, or he is not a Catholic. PERIOD.
A Protestant can call themselves a Christian in a state of grace with a direct line to the Holy Ghost, even if they don't believe Christ is God.
A Catholic is a heretic if he denies one dogma. A Catholic who dies with one mortal sin (heresy is a mortal sin) goes to hell.
Protestantism is like a body care system that teaches that one must eat and exercise to live better. But they leave it up to the person to figure out the rest.
Catholicism is like a body care system that tells you that you must eat good food, what foods to eat, and in what quantities, and what foods MUST NEVER be eaten. It says that you must exercise, how much to exercise, and exactly what exercises to do, and which you MUST never do. And if you don't follow the most important teachings which are vital to your survival, you are no longer a Catholic.
He's not alone.
It's the only possible explanation of how you'd know such personal information about someone to judge them on it.
Actually, that one is pretty basic, and was accepted by all of Christianity for 1500 years:
"If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
"All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
For instance, St. Paul in Galatians (5:19-21) asserted, "It is obvious what proceeds from the flesh: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, bickering, jealousy, outbursts of rage, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you, as I have warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!" (Cf. Rom 1:28-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 4:3-8) Therefore, sacred Scripture explicitly identifies certain sins which kill the grace of God in our soul and deprive a person of eternal salvation.
See my PM.
We know lots of big families. You would be shocked how many “Christians” offer large families advice on family planning, unasked for. Including comments like, “We could never handle that many kids, that’s why we (fill in the blank - i.e., use the pill, got tubes tied, got “snipped,” etc.)”
I’ve witnessed it and been told about it too many times to just shrug it off. On this count, unfortunately, verdugo is absolutely right, even if his methods of sharing these truths may be counterproductive on a thread like this.
On the other hand, God only sent my wife and I three children. We always wanted a large family, so it is a cross we must bear. We know trad Catholics that just assume others with small families or no children contracept, and that is a sinful, judgmental assumption on their part.
The fertility police can be either well-meaning or downright rude. An encounter with them can be as simple as a shake of the head or as complex as lengthy inquiries about the proximity of the children's birthdays or unsolicited advice about the most effective methods of contraception.
One place where I frequently run into the fertility police is the grocery store. There, one woman called me crazy. Another nearly fainted in the soup aisle while I was shopping with my daughter Kathleen, then a month old. This distraught woman insisted on telling me what it was like to be the mother of not only a newborn but also of a three-year-old boy (the "curse" of the human race, as she put it). When I told her I also had a three-year-old son and six children in all, she started muttering to herself, "Six children, six children, six children...," and made a beeline away from me. She did not utter a peep to me in the cereal aisle.
Being open to new life and not cooperating with the contraceptive mentality of today's culture makes a Catholic parent a walking sign of contradiction. Apparently, seeing a family with more than two children causes a searing jab in the consciences of some people who had considered the issue of whether to have more children moot. Why else would complete strangers tell me their darkest secrets about using birth control, along with their reasons for avoiding having another child, some even graphically describing "cutting and burning those tubes"?