Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will
Canterbury Tales Blog ^ | February 15, 2012 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

Posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will


Prior to 1930, all Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox held that contraception was sinful and contrary to God's will. Not only Catholics, but even dissenting voices such as Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed that contraception was against the natural law and the revealed will of God.

The unified consensus against contraception fell apart in 1930, when the Seventh Lambeth Conference of the Church of England, representing the Anglican Communion, issued a statement allowing birth control "when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." This highly controversial decision was gradually accepted by Protestants in general so that currently 90% or more (according to a Harris Interactive poll) practicing Evangelicals support the use of contraceptives and contraceptive behavior. Although the Duggars of "19 and Counting" fame are Protestant, they are certainly the exception.

It's been about 80 years since Protestants changed their position, so that hardly anyone living today remembers a time when all those claiming the title "Christian" opposed contraception. Even the Eastern Orthodox have caved in. The Eastern Orthodox, who claim to be stalwart defenders of their tradition, have reversed the tradition and allowed for contraception - contradicting the plain teaching of Saint John Chrysostom on this matter. The Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Jonah here in the United States is leading the charge in this regard.

The only people defending the traditional view universally against contraception are Catholics. We're riding solo and it's a tough battle.

In the discussions regarding American health care and the HHS debate, many folks (even some Catholics) are confused as to why Catholics are so concerned about contraception. "Everybody is doing it," so it can't be wrong...right?

Well, just remember that "contraceiving Christians" is a new phenomenon. It was formerly believed to be gravely evil. Let us examine six reasons why contraception is sinful and contrary to God's will.

1. Contraception is contrary to natural law. The male and female procreative organs naturally come together to procreate a child. The word procreate includes the term "create" since a new life is made. In the case of humans, a new immortal soul is created by God when the father and mother come together and conceive a new person. As Peter Kreeft said, the most holy place on earth is the altar where the Eucharist is consecrated - the second most holy place is the woman's body since it form there that new immortal souls spring forth. The procreative organs naturally function for procreation. That is why God made them as they are. To frustrate the act (interruptus or barrier) is gravely sinful. To poison the body with hormones so as to inhibit the woman's natural cycle of fertility (birth control pill) is gravely sinful. To cut out or purposefully scar procreative organs (sterilization) is gravel sinful. These acts seek to destroy what is natural.

2. In the Bible, babies are always a blessing, never a curse.
Lo, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate (Ps 126:3-5).
The Catholic Church has always agreed with the words of this Psalm: “children are a heritage from the Lord. Happy is the man who has a quiver full of them!” To this effect, Saint Paul teaches:
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim 2:15).
Granted, this is an obscure passage, but it highlights the esteemed role that women have in bringing new souls into the world. The Christian wife is exhorted to possess “faith and love and holiness, with modesty” but her personal sacrifice of bearing children is esteemed as the greatest response to the grace of God in her life. Just as God the Father is always open to more and more children whom he loves, so also the Catholic parent remains open to this precious gift of life.

The emphasis on the gift of life and the rules and norms for protecting it are essential to Catholic moral teaching. The sexual abuses condemned by the Apostle Paul can be summed up as an abuse of one of the greatest gifts given to humanity—the ability to cooperate with God’s creative power. God could have continued to create human beings just like he created Adam; instead He chose to bring about new persons through the institution of marriage and the family.

3. The case of Onan. Catholics (and pre-1930 Protestants) condemn both masturbation and contraception by appealing to the case of Onan who "spilled his seed on the ground":

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing. (Genesis 38:9–10, D-R)
Here, God directly kills Onan for performing coitus interruptus. Onan's crime included gaining the pleasure of sexual relations with Tamar but the refusal to see the act through as a natural act intended for procreation. Hence, intentional spilling of seed, either in the form of masturbation or contraception is gravely sinful - so much so that God killed a man for it.

Some may object: "Yes, but God killed him for not fulfilling Levirate duties - not for contraception." This objection is poor since Judah also failed in executing the Levirate obligations - but he was not killed by God. So then, it was the contraceptive act in particular that proved both sinful and mortal for Onan.

4. The New Testament condemns contraception, which it calls pharmakeia. As I detail in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint Paul condemns contraception by the name of "pharmakeia," the word from which we derive our term "pharmacy."
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery {pharmakeia}, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).
Surely, Paul does not mean to condemn those who prescribe herbs for those suffering from gout. Looking back to Saint Paul’s list, we see that the sin of pharamakeia follows sexual sins and the sin of idolatry. These ancient witchdoctors or pharmacists were especially popular in idolatrous cultures, since pagan fertility rites often involved sexual orgies. Obviously, the women involved in these depraved rituals would not wish to bear children to strangers, and so they sought to become sterile or sought to relieve themselves of the responsibility of a child through abortion. The ancient Greek pharmacists could provide drugs to meet these goals.

The book of Revelation also condemns those who practice pharmakeia along with those who practice idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality (Rev 9:20-21). The grouping of pharmakeia with the three sins of idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality further confirms that pharmakeia is sin relating to killing and sexual impurity. The second-century physician Soranos of Ephesus, in his book Gynecology, uses the Greek term pharmakeia to refer to potions used for both contraception and abortion. In a similar manner, the third-century theologian Hippolytus condemned certain Christian women who employed “drugs {pharmakois} for producing sterility.”

5. The Church Fathers condemned contraception. This could be a post on its own. I'll just provide three quotes from the Church Fathers on this subject. The first is from the eminent Saint John Chrysostom (in AD 391):
"[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." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
The second is from Saint Jerome (in AD 393) and draws on the sin of Onan:
"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?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
And then third from Saint Augustine (in AD 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…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." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).
In this last quote, we see that Saint Augustine's concern that contraceptive acts turn a wife into a harlot since she is merely satisfying the lusts of her husband and not for the sake of matrimony - a word which means in Latin duty or gift of motherhood from matris (of a mother) and munus (gift, duty, office). This objectification of women brings us to our last reason...

6. Contemporary Observations and the so-called Sexual Revolution. The advent of contraception also accompanied the rise abortion, feminism, pornography, out of wedlock birth, and homosexuality. They all come and go together. If sexual pleasure is formally divorced from conceiving children, then why would pornography by sinful? Why would masturbation be sinful? And if a couple just wanted the pleasure and never intended to conceive a child with their act, then don't they have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy if a conception should happen "by accident"? And if sexual pleasure is for the sake of pleasure, then why would homosexuality be sinful? If God wanted people to experience these pleasures, then pleasure should be the measurement. But this is all ridiculous. The natural, God-appointed purpose of this act is to procreate children and this is why pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, and abortion are wrong. It is also the reason why contraception is gravely sinful.

Contraception is often an uncomfortable topic to discuss with family and friends - especially when they are amused or alarmed by large families that welcome new children. Let this post do some of the work for you. Please share this with your friends via Facebook and other means. People, especially women, don't really want to subject themselves to contraceptive practices. Let's prayerfully and humbly help others to be whole, healthy, and holy in this regard.

“Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb.” (Psalm 126:3, D-R)
Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also explore Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: LibsRJerks

“A bit off topic, but as a nurse in training, we are not being educated to “screen” patients for owning firearms and keeping them in the home — the idea being to “prevent’ you from harming yourself, if you become depressed.

I say — if they ask you in a physical history exam if you own a gun ...don’t even say yes. It’s personal info they have no right to know. Screw ‘em.”

A bit confused on your reply, are they training you ask about firearms in the home?

My company is moving to a health plan that has a mandatory wellness program, where they draw your blood do a physical and history. I’m a bit concerned how this information is gong to be used and by whom.


61 posted on 02/15/2012 11:11:03 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
From reading the Bible I agree that we should love and welcome children into our families. I believe that The LORD said be fruitful and multiply and that children according to the Bible are blessings and actually belong to The LORD.

But I believe that according to the Bible that marital love is meant to be pleasurable. The greatest pleasure not the pleasure of oneself, but rather the pleasure of giving pleasure to the one loved.

I think that in marriage the sexual act is meant to bind two who are married in a way that nothing else can and is meant to be an expression of love between two people, not just a mechanical act with the purpose of procreation. Without the expression of love then it is merely a function rather than an act of love. Abiding love between married people is enhanced and strengthened through the marital bed.

Marital sex must be an act of love, pleasure and with the purpose of procreation all at the same time, one not canceling the other out, but rather enhancing each other as an act that truly does glorify God.

62 posted on 02/16/2012 12:09:08 AM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue
Dimocrats are counting on us having this type of discussion, and they will use it to club us over the head and reelect the big 0.

We need to stay far, far away from the religious arguments, and stay with the unConstitutionality of the the whole thing.

Quite a few protestant FReepers are rubbing their hands in glee over the Catholic issue of contraception. They fail to recognize the magnitude of the Religious freedom aspect. To paraphrase several comments I have received; You reap what you sow. I keep reiterating that if the Catholic Church loses on this then their respective churches will fall even faster.

63 posted on 02/16/2012 2:30:07 AM PST by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
It is also the reason why contraception is gravely sinful.

Many things which the Bible terms sinful are (or have been) against the law, punishable by fines or imprisonment.

Many other things which the Bible terms sinful are not.

Into which category do you believe contraception should fall??

64 posted on 02/16/2012 5:19:11 AM PST by Notary Sojac (A liberal, a conservative, and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi. Mitt!!".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verga
"I keep reiterating that if the Catholic Church loses on this then their respective churches will fall even faster. "
For well over half of those non-Catholics who call themselves Christian, "Fall from what?". While there are vocal Fundamentalists here on FR and while Southern Baptists can almost all be relied on to be trying to follow Christ, what of the majority?

If this isn't successfully framed as a moral issue it isn't going to do any better campaigns to guarantee real freedom of speech on college campuses does. Fundamentalists by and large don't think they even need a church or any sort of fellowship. The larger denominations mostly already ordain queers, marry queers one to another, don't have a problem with contraception or abortion, and are in no way averse to the basic premise that contraception should be a part of insurance policies. Some portion of them may not like the idea of the government mandating this or that aspect of health-care and may realize that this is really a battle over the First Amendment, but they can hardly "fall" to something they embrace.

But still, while possibly concerned with the Constitution they're not at all concerned about Christianity being stomped on because in what they claim is Christianity everything is permissible. They really believe that if it feels good do it because if it feels good God intended it for our enjoyment. Etc, and so on, mitigated only by what's not popular at the moment rather than by moral teaching from the Bible. For example, rather than say anything at all about theology, several people reacted to my becoming Catholic with, "how can you join a Church that is against contraception".

So, fall from what? Obama wants to establish a State religion and he won't have any shortage of support from Catholics in name only and those who say they are Christian but who remain within the mainstream denominations that constitute the majority of non-Catholic Christians.

About 1/3 of Catholics plus 2/3 of non-Catholic Christians are quite happy with Barry dictating morality to the Catholic Church and anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the "progressive" Christianity of most churches. What does 1/3 of Catholics plus 2/3 of non-Catholics amount to as a percentage of the population? That combined group is already a party to something other than Christianity no matter what they prefer to call themselves and would be more than happy to see a State religion established the same way it was established in England, France, and so on, throughout history. In addition, there are plenty of Fundies and CINOs who are always happy to see anyone attack the Catholic Church and while they may see this as a violation of the First Amendment, a good many of them won't speak up. Overall, I doubt 51% of the population see this as a First Amendment issue worth stepping up and speaking up over.

JMHO

65 posted on 02/16/2012 5:36:22 AM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Regarding Galatians 5:20, St. Jerome translated φαρμακεια as "veneficia", -- poison-making (venom-making). The English translation is at fault. Douay, usually reliable, is no better with its "witchcrafts".

Compare

Veneficial

Ven`e*fi"cial\, Veneficious \Ven`e*fi"cious\, a. Acting by poison; used in poisoning or in sorcery. [Obs.] "An old veneficious practice." --Sir T. Browne. -- Ven`e*fi"cious*ly, adv. [Obs.]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/veneficial


66 posted on 02/16/2012 5:51:38 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Russian Synodal, usually with a good ear for the Greek, mistranslates φαρμακεια in Gal 5:20 completely with "волшебство", a reference to soothsaying rather than potion-making.

That translator error in a single word has lead both the Orthodox and Protestants to doctrinal error. The Orthodox, with their practice to consult the holy fathers, are without excuse on this.

67 posted on 02/16/2012 5:57:28 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: verga

All of that may well be true, but, again, what does it have to do with the constitutionality of funding or banning contraceptives? Why is this issue being inserted into this argument? Why are you buying it?


68 posted on 02/16/2012 6:37:09 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
A church run by men who have been mandated to take a vow of celibacy, who revere a manufactured image of a perpetual virgin as the highest form of womanhood, and who hold a supposition of a permanently celibate marriage as the greatest example of that institution, naturally has a stilted view of sex.

Sex is more than a procreative activity. It can be a uniting force that supports a life long union. Sex, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Being pleasurable, it can be used and abused, but like say, fire, water, gravity, etc. it can both nurture, and harm. It is the intent that shifts it into the good or bad side.

The church has set up its own argument which is completely unassailable if one accepts the underlying assertions. The church assumes that anything other than a utilitarian motivation for sex is driven by urges to power and dominance - because that weakens the power and dominance of the church. The standard view of reproduction up until the mid 1800's was that the man generated life, and the woman's function was only to be a fertile vessel. Whether it is explicitly stated or not, the abhorrence of contraception comes from the assumption that it universally destroys life. When in fact true contraception prevents life from starting, in fact really no differently than celibacy prevents life from starting.

The second underlying, unspoken purpose for a ban on contraception was that up until recently, it was just plain dangerous and unhealthy. The prohibition is there to improve the health of the population. Lastly - natural family planning - It's nothing more than bad contraception, blessed by the pope. If contraception subverts the will of God, then purposefully abstaining from sex in order to prevent conception does the exact same thing. The only thing that justifies it is the extra biblical word of the head of the church. Which reminds us of all the other unbiblical characteristics of the leadership I raised in the first paragraph. Thanks but no thanks.

69 posted on 02/16/2012 7:09:36 AM PST by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

By the way, my long winded screed aside, the President is dead wrong to think he has the power to for the Catholic Church to pay for contraception and abortion. I fully support the church’s position. It’s not a matter of specifics, it’s a matter of religious and personal rights.


70 posted on 02/16/2012 7:12:17 AM PST by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

bingo!

Obama is counting on combining birth control and abortion into one issue.

We are no going to have religious kooks and opportunists jump up for their 15 minutes of personal glory.

they don’t care if obama wins, just as long as THEY have the chance to stand in front of the temple and look cool.


71 posted on 02/16/2012 7:21:43 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

Yes, they are. It’s part of the normal health history. We are to ask — do you own a gun? Do you keep firearms in the home?

The idea is to prevent suicide, I suppose. However, people have owned guns forever ...what is the big deal?

However, if your a liberal gungrabber government, and your’e also mandating a healthcare system, with an electronic data base, then the information is right there as to who has guns in the home. Could be very useful.

Creepy, if you ask me.


72 posted on 02/16/2012 7:33:49 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: All

Great. Some people think that God thinks that contraception is wrong. That’s fine as long as they don’t try to impose their belief on others via the law.


73 posted on 02/16/2012 7:47:01 AM PST by sand lake bar (You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue
All of that may well be true, but, again, what does it have to do with the constitutionality of funding or banning contraceptives? Why is this issue being inserted into this argument? Why are you buying it?

The issue is not contraception, it is religious Freedom. I am being asked to pay for and support what I consider immoral practices. Why do my insurance premiums have to pay for someone else contraception or abortion?

Why should hospitals with religious affiliation be forced to do procedures that they consider immoral?

The government is mandating that we violate what we consider Gods laws in favor of man's law.

74 posted on 02/16/2012 7:47:46 AM PST by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Good luck.


75 posted on 02/16/2012 7:48:00 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Whether it is explicitly stated or not, the abhorrence of contraception comes from the assumption that it universally destroys life. When in fact true contraception prevents life from starting, in fact really no differently than celibacy prevents life from starting.

You obviously know nothing of the Church's teachings on this subject. You entire post is nonsense.

76 posted on 02/16/2012 7:49:09 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


77 posted on 02/16/2012 8:02:51 AM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Here's a thread posted today: Contraception and Catholicism (What the Roman Catholic Church really teaches)

You should read it to disabuse yourself of these silly notions regarding the continual, universal teachings of Christianity (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic) regarding birth control (which have only been changed by some sects of Christianity, primarily Protestant, in the past 80 years.)

78 posted on 02/16/2012 8:04:17 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

Then your right, its probably best to keep your mouth shut. Especially if the information is not relevant to what you are seeing the Dr. for.

As I tell my kids. “Be careful of what you say, you can never unsay something...”

It is very creepy all the information they are attempting to gather about people. (Government and Corporations).

Best to have a very small footprint.


79 posted on 02/16/2012 8:09:55 AM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

When a poster posts demonstrably false information about the Church’s teachings on contraception, they are either completely ignorant, or willfully lying. I thought it less “making it personal” to assert the former than the latter, but I’ll try harder in the future not to display such contempt for willful ignorance, as you request.


80 posted on 02/16/2012 8:17:44 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson