Skip to comments.Contraception is contrary to God's law: Why the Hahns became Roman Catholic
Posted on 10/05/2012 3:22:55 AM PDT by koinonia
From a transcript of Scott Hahn telling his story: We [Kimberly & I] got married right out of college. Both of us had so much of the same vision. We wanted to do ministry together [as Presbyterians], we wanted to share the good news of Christ, we wanted to open up the Bible and make it come alive for people...
We were off to seminary a week or two after our wedding...
[In] a course that Kimberly took her first year... Dr. Davis had all the students break up into small groups so that each small group could tackle one topic... One dinner she announced that she was in a small group devoted to studying contraception. I remember thinking at the time, "Why contraception?"
The year before when I took the class, nobody signed up for that small group and I told her. She said, "Well, three others have signed up for it and we had our first meeting today. So and so appointed himself to be chair of the committee, and he announced the results of our study even before it began. He said, 'Well, we all know as Protestants, as Bible Christians, that contraception is fine, I mean so long as we don't use contraceptives that are abortafacients like the I.U.D. and so on.' He announced further that really the only people who call themselves Christians who oppose artificial birth control are the Catholics, and he said, 'The reason they do, of course, is because they are run by a celibate Pope and lead by celibate priests who don't have to raise the kids but want Catholic parents to raise lots so they can have lots of priests and nuns to draw from, you know.'"
Well, that kind of argumentation did not really impress Kimberly. She said, "Are you sure those are the best arguments they would offer?" And I guess he must have mocked or said, "Well, do you want to look into it yourself?" You don't say that kind of thing to Kimberly. She said, "Yes," and she took an interest in researching this on her own.
So that night at dinner... she said, "I've discovered that up until 1930, every single Protestant denomination without exception opposed contraception on Biblical grounds." Then I said, "Oh come on, maybe it just took us a few centuries to work out the last vestiges of residual Romanism, I don't know." And she said, "Well, I'm going to look into it."
...she handed me a book. It was entitled Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant by John Kippley... I began to read through the book with great interest because in my own personal study, going through the Bible several times, I had come upon this strong conviction that if you want to know God, you have to understand the covenant, because the covenant was the central idea in all of Scripture. So when I picked up this book I was interested to see the word 'covenant' in the title, Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant. I opened it up and I began reading it, and I said, "Wait a second, Kimberly, this guy is a Catholic. You expect me to read a Catholic?" And the thought occurred to me instantly at that moment, What is a Catholic doing putting 'covenant' into his book title? Since when do Catholics hijack my favorite concept?
Well, I began to read the book. I went through two or three chapters and he was beginning to make sense, so I promptly threw the book across my desk. I didn't frankly want him to make any sense. But I picked it up again and read through some more. His arguments made a lot of sense. From the Bible, from the covenant, he showed that the marital act is not just a physical act; it's a spiritual act that God has designed by which the marital covenant is renewed. And in all covenants you have an opportunity to renew the covenant, and the act of covenant renewal is an act or a moment of grace. When you renew a covenant, God releases grace, and grace is life, grace is power, grace is God's own love. Kippley shows how in a marital covenant, God has designed the marital act to show the life-giving power of love. That in the marital covenant the two become one, and God has designed it so that when the two become one, they become so one that nine months later you might just have to give it a name. And that child who is conceived, embodies the oneness that God has made the two through the marital act. This is all the way that God has designed the marital covenant. God said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," and God, who is three in one, made man, male and female, and said, "Be fruitful and multiply." The two shall become one and when the two become one, the one they become is a third child, and then they become three in one. It just began to make a lot of sense, and he went through other arguments as well. By the time I finished the book, I was convinced.
It bothered me just a little that the Roman Catholic Church was the only denomination, the only Church tradition on earth that upheld this age-old Christian teaching rooted in Scripture, because in 1930 the Anglican Church broke from this tradition and began to allow contraception, and shortly thereafter every single mainline denomination on earth practically caved in to the mounting pressure of the sexual revolution. By the 1960's and 70's, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, not only endorsed contraception, but abortion on demand and federal funding for abortion, and that appalled me. And I began to wonder if there wasn't a connection between giving in a little here and then all of a sudden watching the floodgates open later. I thought "No, no, you know the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years; they're bound to get something right." We have a saying in our family that even a blind hog finds an acorn, and so it was, I thought. That was my second year.
I was really surprised when I read that his daughter, Kimberly Hahn had converted to Catholicism along with her husband. I read Scott's book defending Catholicism as being scriptural, and acknowledged his points in all but a very few important areas.
Nonetheless, I do believe the Roman Catholics are absolutely correct about contraception, and I see the basic problem being the arrogance of anointing oneself the determiner of the beginning of life. If is a slippery, easy slope from there to deciding one is also the determiner of the end of life....abortion on demand and all forms of euthanasia. And that easily falls prey to believing in a government's authority to determine not just the beginning and ending of life but also how life in between those end points should be lived.
Contraception, in my mind, leads to believing in Godless, all-controlling government. It leads to, in other words, slavery.
I'm sorry if I've interjected my protestant thoughts into a Roman Catholic discussion, but I'm hoping my agreement on the topic of contraception will mitigate any interference on my part.
“But the Bible tells us that Gods instruction to mankind (including Adam and Eve) were to be fruitful and multiply.”
If my wife & I were the only humans on earth, that command would make a lot of sense. And in a tribal society, as the Old Testament was, having children means just about everything. But I don’t live in a tribal society, and I don’t need to populate the earth.
If using a condom is wrong, then so is abstaining...
“I see the basic problem being the arrogance of anointing oneself the determiner of the beginning of life”.
God gives us brains and expects us to use them. I lock my doors at night. That doesn’t mean I don’t trust God, but that I use what God has provided to shape my future.
God gives us brains, but does He expect us to be in control of the ending of lives?
Does a condom kill anyone?
'Amazing Grace for Those Who Suffer'
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
NFP It Aint Your Mommas 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
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to just arbitrarily say that “...abstaining is wrong”.
It’s a discipline Christians expect unmarried people to observe.
It’s a discipline that becomes evident in the later stages of pregnancy and the early weeks after birth.
It’s a reasonable discipline in regards to menstrual cycles.
It is a prudent discipline in situations of health concerns.
Under the Hebrew law, women were to remain untouched until 14 days after menstruation. It was called “nidrah”. ( an is quite likely the reason why there were so many sons born)
“Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. 1 Cor. 6:5 ( and then go on to read 6 and 7).
Yes, St. Paul says “to devote yourselves to prayer.” If a couple has a valid reason for “mutual consent” to abstain for a while, they can prayerfully use it that it may be for the glory of God and the sanctification of their lives.
There is nothing wrong with that-—in fact, it is a virtue.
The use of condoms denies and blocks the life-giving powers that God has designed for us, that we may share in His creation.
Jesus does not block from us nor deny us of His life-giving, love-giving Precious Blood. His way is the way of Truth. As the Bridegroom, He shows us the way.
xzins, I am happy to read that you understand the problem of contraception. God bless you.
Posted twice because of an error on my phone. The incorrect plural was slap in the text. Really tired of conservatives who don’t know that Mr and Mrs Smith are the Smiths, not the Smith’s, who write Nazi’s as the plural of Nazi. What happened in America, did everyone go to the same bad school where they weren’t taught how to add an S to the word dog to make it dogs? Is there so little reading comprehension that even seeing the correct use of plural nouns constantly in the media doesn’t register?
“The use of condoms denies and blocks the life-giving powers that God has designed for us, that we may share in His creation.”
So does abstinence.
But what a condom does is give a couple the ability to express their love without choosing to have a child. Dogs breed. Humans can and should love each other. And the use of our minds gives us a choice a dog doesn’t have.
If anyone doesn’t want to use a condom, that is fine. They are free to decide for themselves. But I see no scriptural warrant for claiming a person using a condom is evil.
I have had the personal experience of this, in the years that I taught Fertility Awareness.
One woman told me, with her husband sitting next to her, that every time she took the Pill, she “hated” him. She had tears falling from her cheeks. It was her first chance to let him know the truth. (BTW, things worked out very well for them because she was faithful to the truth. They were Baptists, and they went on to teach other couples what they learned in the FA class.)
That woman was, I have no doubt, one of many (who probably never had her courage to tell their husbands the truth).
“...so does abstinence”.
Abstinence is a decision. Sexual intercourse is an act.
And using a condom during sexual intercourse is a decision on how to commit an act...
Mr. Rogers, I’m aware that you are committed to your position on this.
I understand that you aren’t seeing it from a different point of understanding.
It’s my hope that there may come a time when you may.
John Calvin is reported to have written: "For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley and Martin Luther are in agreement with Calvin on that point.
For me, though, the issue is more about the illusion that we are in charge of life and death, that we are our own masters of the universe, masters of our own destiny and the destiny of others.
I think that is a shameful notion, and I think it is a notion that is inherent in the belief that we are in charge of the beginning of life.
Your comment is most welcome. The additional biographical information on Kimberly is quite interesting.
RE: contraception being a slippery slope from “anointing oneself the determiner of the beginning of life... to deciding one is also the determiner of the end of life,” I think you hit the nail right on the head.
It’s sad that some political leaders are on an abortion crusade - note, they are not “pro-choice,” but pro abortion, and they are promoting abortion not only policitally, but even socially. That’s pretty generic, but let me give you the specific confirmation...
Some friends of mine from the Philippines told me that when Bill Clinton was President, to “help” get abortion legalized in the Philippines, he gave big sums of money (our tax dollars, presumably) to the President of the Philippines; immediately afterwards there was a huge spread of pornography and an unprecedented promotion of contraception. It’s really sick, but in order to get abortion legalized they first try to get the culture addicted to porn, then contraception, and then legalized abortion is just a block away.
Similarly, their present liberal President Aquino was not pushing contraception and abortion, that is, until he had a friendly visit with Obama in 2009. Now he is pushing the agenda “to help the economy.”
God bless you!
Thank you for this post.
You have expressed so well the Biblical perspective of who is the author and upholder of life.
**I think that is a shameful notion, and I think it is a notion that is inherent in the belief that we are in charge of the beginning of life.**
Thank you for your views. They concur with those of the Catholic Church. God is in control and God is pro-life. God does not want a future baby to dry up in a condom.
**I think that is a shameful notion, and I think it is a notion that is inherent in the belief that we are in charge of the beginning of life.**
Thank you for your views. They concur with those of the Catholic Church. God is in control and God is pro-life. God does not want the possibility of a future baby to dry up in a condom.
Chesterton on birth control/population control: In 1925 Chesterton wrote an introduction to Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol in which he said that The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not.
Chesterton on birth control/population control:
In 1925 Chesterton wrote an introduction to Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol in which he said that The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not.
‘even good and sincere Christians get their daughters on birth control at 16.’
Many do not know anything contrary to the birth control argument. They have just accepted things as they are today. They also may not have been Christians very long and still accept the norms of society. No we did not put our girls on birth control. I have young friends who have only been Christians 5 to 6 years and the wife took the shot, whatever it is, and they do not know about BC arguments. They are a strong and growing Christian family in their walk with God in my opinion. Actually, it was learning about this event, that probably caused me to begin thinking deeply about what birth control does to people and how it affects their relationship with God It is just this has come to be accepted, and as I said, in my advancing years, am now learning about both sides. So, like many things in life, you wish sometimes you could go back and start again. I find myself praying for and being more thankful for God’s mercy through Jesus every day. Our role as age advancing adults is to make sure both sides are presented to the BC issue. I intend to do that myself. We have a long way to go to turn back the accepted norms of the past 50-80 years, and it can only be done through persistent teaching.