Children of the Reformation: A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception

Free Dominion / Pincipled Conservative ^ | May 2007 | Allan Carlson

[Mrs. Don-o]

The entire article without all the snips [] is well worth reading.

My praise and thanks to the Protestant, Evangelical and Non-Denom leaders who are questioning contraception and other perversions of the God-given design of sexuality.

Class, discuss.

[narses]

“If only ‘they’ would let priests (and football coaches) marry!”

[Paved Paradise]

Wow! That was fantastic. So glad you posted that. How I wish I knew then what I know now.

[Cicero]

Very interesting article. It is well known that the 1930 Lambeth Conference in the Anglican Church was a key turning point, leading step by step to contraception, abortion, and the whole sexual revolution.

It was followed in the U.S. by Griswold v. Connecticut (making it a right of married people to buy contraceptives) and then by Roe v. Wade.

[NYer]

God bless the Duggars and ....

the Bates

who have not only shunned artificial contraception but opened their lives to accept the children God has sent. We have many Catholic families who fit the same profile but these two families have risen above the permissiveness that has permeated the protestant congregations.

[muawiyah]

Up until Antonie van Leeuwenhoek saw them in his early microscopes, folks really had no idea there were sperm, nor eggs. The earlier idea was focused on the mixing of semen, that obviously provided by the male, and less so obviously by the female ~ folks had few ideas of how reproduction actually took place.

The other competing theory was that men deposited tiny human beings in the women who brought them through to birth.

Popular books in the late 19th century continued to push the male only method of reproduction.

So, just like to propose here that the DISCOVERY of the mammalian method of reproduction right down to sperm and eggs was a seminal discovery of profound importance, and that occurred coincidentally with the development of slightly different Catholic and Protestant points of view on these matters.

Remember, we didn't even know what we needed to know about DNA until the 1960s.

[theKid51]

Ping

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's something that perhaps warrants your consideration.

The Christian Science people are wrong. Medical interventions in "the natural order of things" are praiseworthy when their intent is to restore natural function: to treat disroders, cure diseases, heal injuries, reshape malformed organs and limbs, and so forth. These interventions are inspired by an affirmative idea of what constitutes "natural, normal, and healthy."

Disease, deformity, disorders and dysfunction occur in nature --- but in the above sense, they are not "natural": because they do not represent God's affirmative intent of an optimal flourishing of the human person.

With me so far?

And so for that reason, the use of drugs, surgeries, and so forth to restore or heal natural function is a good thing.

Contgraception, on the other hand, does not have this justification. Whg? Because its intent is not to heal a natural function, but to sabotage it. It does not cure any disease; its purpose is to split sexuality into component parts (affection, commitment, satisfaction, fertility) and then dispose of one of them (fertility). It drives a wedge between the two meanings which are God-intended in the marital act: the sharing of love, and the openness to life.

This is not to say that married couples have the obligation to have as many children as they can. Of course not. There can be serious reasons why a husband and wife may judge that they are not ready for another pregnancy, or that another baby should be delayed. But they should accomplish that goal without perverting sexual intercourse, whether that perversion is done by withdrawal, or anal sex, or contraception, or other practices which (like the sin of Onan) separate sex from its designed fertility.

The point of the article was that all Christians agreed with this Scriptural and moral perspective until 1930, when the Anglicans broke with an almost 2,000 year Chirstian consensus.

< It's just hard to believe that all Christians understood sexuality wrongly for 20 centuries, until the Anglicans got it right.

< And if the Anglicans were right about that, then they are now right about homosexual sex, i.e. it's OK if it seems right for you. Which is the same argment they used in favor of contracepted sex.

It's very hard to condemn a homosexual sex act (which is turned away from its natural function), if you're already committed to a contracepted sex act (which is turned away from its natural function.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's true that people had little idea about the microbiology of sperm, eggs, DNA etc. until very recently. However the Christian moral objection to contracepted acts is not that they are the same as homicide (abortion) but that they are the same as Onanism, i.e. altering the sex act to make it infertile. It is a form of sacrilege, i.e. it trivializes our understanding of the profundity of sex.

Contracepted acts radically flatten and shrink our perception of the sanctity of man-woman bodily union.

That has certainly been borne out by experience. a contraceptive culture has no concept of "sacredness" in respect to sex--- none at all. And such a culture is ever MORE abortion-minded. Contraception does not help matters. Contraception and abortion, historically, go up in tandem.

A perspective more fully elucidated here

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-01-020-v>

[muawiyah]

For folks whose own ancestors had serious problems of what is called "indeterminate infertility" where half your offspring are infertile, much of the moral concerns take a totally different tack.

Did you realize that such populations, with 1/4 the reproduction rate of everyone else, yet the same or even higher death rate, tend not to grow over geologic periods of time?

A tribe could only boost its population through the expedient of passing around the women to see who could get pregnant.

Typically a woman, or a man, facing this dilemma, will have 5 spouses over the course of the normal breeding age.

Charles Darwin was apparently unaware that ran in his family and then he ended up married to a first cousin ~ and half their kids ended up infertile (much to everyone's consternation).

I always take all of the standard arguments (for or against divorce, wife-swapping, contraception, and other sexual matters) and crank them through the logic of this condition.

Onan may well have run afoul of the pro scripts in a population with indeterminate infertility ~ which is why he was killed by a lightning bolt ~ which is a suggestion this is a really, really, really ancient story probably handed down by Ice Age hunter/gatherers who were probably all afflicted with the condition.

(God, of course, is the author of moral prescripts, but with Onan you are looking at a death penalty for behavior he probably didn't invent ~ and it's highly unlikely the Hebrews in Moses' camp were subjected to all that many death penalties for that particular sin ~ hence it's a moral lesson, not a current event).

[Mrs. Don-o]

I do not, of course, base the entire ediface of morality upon a single line of Genesis.

I find related, and stronger arguments in 2,000 years of Christian agreement (a hermeneutic of continuity with a very strong sensus fidelium), all of it conmfirmed ---strongly ---by the authority of the Church, Natural Law, and the last 50 years of human experience.

Here's something for your reflection:

The latest in natural fertility technology --- to achieve or postpone procreation (Link).

[Verginius Rufus]

Genesis doesn't say that Onan was killed by lightning, only that he was killed. He was refusing to carry out his duty to raise up "seed" for his dead older brother, because the child would be regarded as his brother's offspring. I don't know if there are any verses that condemn contraception when that obligation is not at play--it may have not occurred to Hebrew men of that period not to want as many children as possible since so many died young--you wanted to be sure of at least one male heir.

As late as the 18th and 19th centuries high infant and child mortality was common even among middle-class and wealthy families. Queen Anne had 17 children but none of them lived to adulthood. Catherine of Aragon had many children but only her daughter Mary survived, which is why Henry VIII was so determined to divorce Catherine and try to have a son with another wife.

Only two of Thomas Jefferson's six children lived long enough to marry. Only one of Lincoln's four children lived to adulthood. The decline in average family size in the late 19th and early 20th centuries occurs when the odds of an individual child surviving to adulthood become much better.

[Belteshazzar]

Mrs. Don-o wrote:
“This is not to say that married couples have the obligation to have as many children as they can. Of course not. There can be serious reasons why a husband and wife may judge that they are not ready for another pregnancy, or that another baby should be delayed. But they should accomplish that goal without perverting sexual intercourse, whether that perversion is done by withdrawal, or anal sex, or contraception, or other practices which (like the sin of Onan) separate sex from its designed fertility.”

Two things about this: First, you are validating H. L. Mencken’s observation that the Roman pope countenances birth control by means of mathematics, but not by means of physics or chemistry. I have, as a Christian, always found his critique valid, even though he made it as an atheist. He has a point. Second, by arguing as you do, you have invalidated the central - and only logically consistent - argument against contraception. Thereafter all is debate about the how and not the what. I find your argument singularly unconvincing. The real problem with having children or failing to do so is unbelief and selfishness on the part of people. Your argument is only about technological advancement or the lack thereof.

I say this as one who is still Lutheran and have five children of my own. My wife’s brother (still a thorough-going Lutheran) has 13 (all of the same woman, his wife). In our circles, they were not frowned upon, but admired.

Sorry, I don’t buy your argument. The causes of today’s horrible sexual mores lie elsewhere.

[Salvation]

Here are other sources for discussion:

Children of the Reformation: A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception

Contraception: The Reason Catholics Have Abandoned Confession
U.S. Bishops’ Publication Urges Priests to Preach on Contraception, Sterilization, IVF
Contraception: The Bitter Pill
Catholic Bishops Warn of ‘Civil Disobedience’ Over Contraceptives [Philippines]
Relationships Market After 50 Years of The Pill
Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul
Christians examine morality of birth control [Ecumenical/Orthodox Presbyterian]
The Cost of Contraception: Women's Health - Response to CNN
The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
Baby Bust: The Demographics of Global Depression

The Surest Sign of a Decadent Culture
Protestants and Birth Control
The Protest of a Protestant Minister Against Birth Control
Contraception: Why Not?
The Bible & Birth Control
Our Gravest Moral Responsibility: Convert the Contraception Mentality
Contraception and Conversion
Evangelical Leaders are Ok with Contraception
The pill and 50 years of misery [the pill kills!]
The dawn of demonic deception [the birth control pill]

Researcher finds strong link between contraception and HIV
The Birth-Control Riddle
Social Science Proves Humanae Vitae
"Contraception Is Wrong. Now Here's How You Use It . . ."
Suit claims birth control warning not enough
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
Planned Parenthood Uses Teens to Distribute Injectable Birth Control in Rural Ecuador
Study: Low-Dose Birth Control Pills Decrease Bone Density in Young Women
Spanish drug agency confirms grave effects of morning-after pill
Another Woman Dies of Hormonal Contraceptive in Switzerland

Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
The Re-Birth of Population Control: Human Life Seen as a Carbon Problem
Radio Replies First Volume - Birth Control
Abortion, birth control pill linked to breast cancer, surgeon says
God before contraception (Australia)
Fighting the 'contraceptive mentality'
Birth control pill creator regrets population decline
Polluted Water, Polluted Culture (one more consequence from contraception)
Abortifacients -- The Other Forbidden Grief
NFP and Contraception: What’s the Difference?

Wisconsin requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives coverage
Contraception: The history you may have missed and would rather not know
Why does Pope Benedict talk about Humanae vitae in the new encyclical? [Catholic Caucus]
New Evangelical Documentary Exposes Abortifacient Qualities of the Birth Control Pill, Promotes NFP
In Quiverfull Movement, Birth Control Is Shunned
Press in a Dither Again over Pope’s Reaffirmation of Catholic Teaching
How Birth Control Changed America for the Worst
If You Are Contracepting, You Are Part of A Very Big Problem
Vatican and Italian government criticize sale of RU 486 in Italy
New Condom Ads Target Catholics, Latinos

St. Padre Pio, Humanae Vitae, and Mandatory Abortion
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom — Part 6 of 6 [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Sex Speaks: True and False Prophets — Part 4 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and the Language of the Body — Part 3 of 6 [Open]
Does Contraception Foster Love? — Part 2 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and Cultural Chaos — Part 1 of 6 [Open]
Priests still suffering from effects of Humanae Vitae dissenters, Vatican cardinal says (Must read!)

"Provoking reflection" (Contrasting views on Humanae Vitae)
Humanae Vitae The Year of the Peirasmòs - 1968
Catholics to Pope: Lift the Birth Control Ban
[OPEN] The Vindication of Humanae Vitae
Catholic Clergy Challenge Colleagues to Reacquaint Themselves and Their People with Humanae Vitae
White House proposes wide "conscience clause" on abortion, contraception
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE" [Catholic Caucus]
“A degrading poison that withers life”
Australia Study: 70 Percent of Women Seeking Abortions Used Contraception
[Fr. Thomas Euteneuer] In Persona Christi: The Priest and Contraception

A Challenging Truth, Part Two: The Day the Birth Control Died
A Challenging Truth, Part One: How Birth Control Works
Ten Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in 2008
The concept of the "intrinsically evil"
Pope Tells Pharmacists Not to Dispense Drugs With 'Immoral Purposes'
Massive Study Finds the Pill Significantly Increases Cancer Risk if Used more than Eight Years
Birth Control Pill Creates Blood Clot Causing Death of Irish Woman
Seminarians Bring Church’s Teaching on Contraception, Sexuality to YouTube
Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies
History of Catholic teaching on Contraception

Pope: Legislation "Supporting Contraception and Abortion is Threatening the Future of Peoples"
Contraception: Why It's Wrong
On Fox News Fearless HLI Priest Takes on Sean Hannity (may be indebted for saving his soul)
VIDEO - SEAN HANNITY vs REV. THOMAS EUTENEUER (must see!)
The Early Church Fathers on Contraception - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Pope on divine love vs. erotic love
Conjugal Love and Procreation: God's Design
Being fruitful [Evangelicals and contraception]

[muawiyah]

Most of the populations with an indeterminant infertility problem lived in the Far North and were mostly out of contact with the folks in the Temperate and warmer latitudes until about 1,000 years ago. Christianity was spread to them so late in history that we actually had real live pagans from Scandinavia and Russia being shipped here in the early 1600s.

The 2,000 years of Christian agreement really hasn't had all that much time to come up with solutions to the problem. In fact, there's a danger that this difficulty ~ which definitely has all the hallmarks of a genetically directed process ~ will be swept under the rug as just another reproductive problem readily addressed by modern science. Obviously modern science doesn't deal with this either.

[Salvation]

And the other side of contraception -- the truth of Natural Family Planning.

Contraception: The Bitter Pill
Divorce Rate Comparisons Between Couples Using NFP & Artificial Birth Control

'Amazing Grace for Those Who Suffer'
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
NFP — It Ain’t Your Momma’s Rhythm
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch
Natural Family Planning

[BenKenobi]

Actually, you can document it pretty well.

First the pastors starting using it, and it filtered on down to the congregation, around the turn of the century.

You can find letters from the Church fathers condemning contraception.

[redgolum]

Quite right.

Of course, the way NFP is used and taught, it is Catholic contraception.

[muawiyah]

No, accusations of hypocrisy are simply not Christian. So don't try to use it. Only Moslems imagine hypocrisy (something you see in your mind only) is a reason to murder people.

Jesus told us to tend to the problem in our own eye first.

Now, regarding the use of condoms, that appears to have an origin at least 1800 years ago, and maybe more.

The full scientific understanding of procreative processes has barely more than a century's worth of history. Previously it was simply speculation ~ or total mystery. Obviously people were into sex for the marginal entertainment value ~ if they'd known what we know now they'd behaved themselves wouldn't they?!