Skip to comments.Anglicans and Sexual Contradictions
Posted on 12/12/2013 4:07:04 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
The Church strongly opposes contraception, in keeping with the historical position of Christianity. Openness to procreating life is one of the defining characteristics of marriage, which is primarily what makes homosexual "marriage" impossible. The Church also upholds the life-long commitment that is marriage. Contrast the Church's beautiful teachings on all of this against the positions of Protestantism -- those of Anglicanism, in particular.
Anglicans once agreed with the Church on these subjects, up until the 1930 Lambeth Conference that approved contraception in some cases (which, of course, had a snowball effect). Here's the 15th resolution from the Conference:
"Where there is 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 discipline 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 from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."There were still some restrictions, obviously, but since then, all practical barriers to contraception have fallen. That decision of that Conference is interesting, especially considering that it stated that "the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children" in its 13th resolution and that "the duty of parenthood [is] the glory of married life" in its 14th resolution.
The Episcopal "Church" of the USA (the official American branch of Anglicanism) also now blesses homosexual relationships. (See their liturgy for it here.) The "Church" of England recently announced that it will follow the same route.
But what must be kept in mind is that, in 1991, the ECUSA officially barred homosexual couples from having sexual relations:
"..the 70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous 'union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind' 'intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord' as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer" [link]And the 1930 Lambeth Conference addressed the subject, as well:
"[The Conference] reaffirms 'as our Lord's principle and standard of marriage a life-long and indissoluble union, for better or worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard.'" [from Resolution 11]So, if openness to life is not required in marriage (which the acceptance of contraception would seem to indicate), then why are same-sex couples in the ECUSA mandated to practice sexual abstinence? And if it is required, then why are contraception and homosexual relationships now endorsed?
And I must say that I find it laughable (but not at all surprising) that Anglicanism, which was founded by a king that just wanted a few divorces, is so inconsistent on the subject of divorce, too. Its leaders have taught that marriage is to be a "life-long union" (Resolution 114 of the 1958 LC) and "no husband or wife has the right to contemplate even legal separation until every opportunity of reconciliation and forgiveness has been exhausted" (Resolution 116 of the 1958 LC), yet divorce and "remarriage" are now totally accepted.
The Anglican positions on marriage and sexuality are nonsensical. Would not God's true Church be more consistent? If Anglicans really want to "secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology" (Resolution 12 of the 1930 LC), then they should tell them to become Catholic.
Follow me on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to my YouTube apologetic videos.
Judas betrays Christ with a kiss.
Once the Spirit has left the building, there is nothing left to do but call the realtors.
My thoughts exactly.
I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.
The declaration at Lambeth is contentless. They never answered the question: WHAT moral considerations could make continence immoral?
Ultimately, of course, married couples were being told: Do the right thing, unless you find it difficult or unpleasant.
Tolkien best summarized Anglicanism: “a pathetic and shadowy medley of half-remembered traditions and mutilated beliefs.”
>> I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.
What in your mind justifies Catholicism being a better spiritual venue for pro-homosexual Anglicans?
“So, if openness to life is not required in marriage (which the acceptance of contraception would seem to indicate), then why are same-sex couples in the ECUSA mandated to practice sexual abstinence? And if it is required, then why are contraception and homosexual relationships now endorsed?”
Excellent point. But sin is incompatible with true logic and reasoning.
If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.
I sincerely HOPE nobody decides to join the Catholic Church solely on the basis of this issue.
For starters, the CAtholics aren't pro-homosexual.
If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.You are a "member" of the "True Church", yes?
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but here would be a few answers to boatbums question:
First, placing a physical (or drug) barrier rather than a self-control barrier smacks of the philosophy that we, instead of God, are the arbiters of our own fates, of who gets born and who dies. In fact, it says "we INSIST that we are in control of life and death."
Second, use of the physical barrier more likely leads to turning a blind eye to one's children's use of same when they become of a sexually active age.
Third, rejecting a well-intentioned church teaching in one area could lead to a life of looking for exceptions in other (all?) areas of church teaching. The straight-forward purpose of the contraception mandate is to honor God as being sovereign in all affairs.
I agree, well said Padre.
This subject always seems WEIRD to me. Does anyone actually think God is knitting His brow over contraception questions, when we cannot even get “THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD” correct? Really. Here we are, called to be ambassadors for Christ, preaching the reconciliation God desires for man, through the finished work of His Son, and yet, contraception is the highest note we can reach for Him.
If you have a chance to honor God in one area, then why wouldn’t you?
However, the issue of man determining he is sovereign over life and death is a huge issue, so “condoms” are a slippery slope to euthanasia....murder to promote social convenience.
Actually thats very easy to understand. Catholics must obfuscate to the peripherals of Catholic teaching that cannot be substantiated in scripture because they cannot stand on scripture alone. Satan always attempts to deflect from what scripture says. As Jesus pointed out, Satan is always trumped by what scripture actually says. Its why Jesus so often said it is written. Catholics must get off of it is written or they will be thwarted like Satan was.
THAT makes sense. I’ve not seen so many “experts “ on contraception than here. Ask about a condom and the reply is swift and without doubt. Ask about the gospel of your salvation, and well..
"Well intentioned church teaching" ≠ Scripture. There's no point in following church teachings if they do not line up with the Word of God. It does not impress God or earn brownie points with Him.
Considering the rate of contraceptive failure, I hardly think that God is not sovereign in conception. If God so chooses that a certain person exist, that person will despite the efforts of parents to prevent pregnancy. And there's no fool proof contraceptive.
There's danger in mandating what God is silent on in Scripture. It smacks of legalism and is how cults are born.
We all make decisions based on the revelation that we do have, Metmom. To say that nothing can counteract or stump the power of God is a true saying. That fact, however, has not prevented any number of creatures from nonetheless trying to do so. Did Satan’s rebellion triumph over God? No it has not as will be seen in the will have not.
So, because Satan cannot counteract God’s purpose and power, does that mean Satan hasn’t really done bad? No. He has done evil, and that sin will be punished eventually in the lake of fire.
With us is there anyone God has decreed to be born who will remain unborn? Never. God’s sovereignty overcomes all.
Is the intention to change the status of those who are to exist to the status of those who will not exist a sinful thought? I think it is. I think it is an assumption of sovereignty in the same way that thought of murder is an assumption of sovereignty. (BTW, every pro-life argument supports this viewpoint. The pre-born are living creations of God.)
What about the pre-conceived? Are they real?
Well, only if there is evidence that the “yet to be conceived” have ever been predicted and the prediction come true. The Messiah Jesus, John the Baptist, and Cyrus come quickly to mind.
Therefore, the intention of the heart to do away with the yet to be conceived is a sin of the heart akin to the taking of a life.
Far better to err on the side of life.
Then, do you agree with me that NFP and the so-called "Rhythm Method" are also playing God with pre-conceived life? If this is where you want to go then how far do you take it? What about any medical intervention in treatments developed to extend lives is this also "playing God" or do you think God's permissive will can work WITH human beings to accomplish His goals? There was, and still are in some places, religious people who shun ANY medical intervention in favor of trusting in God for all healing - often at risk of their and their children's lives. Do you imagine a church hierarchy should be able to mandate to its members on every area of their lives or do we have a liberty in the non-essentials to decide between us and God what is good for us? Scripture doesn't specify - other than "thou shall not kill" - what is acceptable in the marriage bed, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
There can be legitimate reasons for a married couple to use condoms (i.e.,prevention of transference of infection; financial inability to support children at the time; physical danger of pregnancy in the wife). However, my argument was more geared towards what appears as hypocrisy in the Roman Catholic Church when they forbid all methods of contraception - even condoms which do not cost the life of the unborn child (such as would an IUD and most BC pills) - yet approve of methods that allow the couple to enjoy the sexual union without risking pregnancy. How is that different than using a condom?
A good question to ask is if NFP is okay, then is the use of a condom also to doubly protect against conception okay? I can't help but think there is double talk going on in regard to this subject. There are other areas where I disagree with Catholicism theologically and I can back up my belief with Scripture. On the subject of what another man and wife do in their own marriage bed, well that's not really my business.
You are right. I had a friend who was taking birth control pills yet still got pregnant - TWICE - and they adored their two sons who resulted from it. I don’t think it’s any of my business telling a married couple what they can or cannot do in the decision about having kids. I’m NOT talking about abortion or any method that kills preborn life, just that, if they decide to use a barrier method or other actions to still enjoy their God-designed sexual union while avoiding a pregnancy, then that’s between them and God.
Thank you for this very succinct and gracious reply.
It does speak to the very core of our nature as created beings. We are not the Creator and Author of life, He is.
I wish I had understood this sooner and been open to more children.
So do y’all believe that artificial birth control is NOT sinful?
You are a “member” of the “True Church”, yes?
So in your Church of One, you approve of artificial birth control? What scripture supports that odd view?
Catholics must obfuscate to the peripherals of Catholic teaching that cannot be substantiated in scripture because they cannot stand on scripture alone. Satan always attempts to deflect from what scripture says.Where does Scripture support your apparent view that artificial birth control is allowed?
Please show the scripture that says it is.
-— Please show the scripture that says it is. -—
Where’s that in the Bible?
Regardless, there is the sin of Onan.
And artificial means of induced sterility are an obvious violation of the natural law. The practice of eating and “purging” is exactly analogous.
That was for disobeying God.
Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
That has nothing to do with birth control. Try again.
If you cant come up with a basis from scripture why dont you just say so?
And, up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churchs teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
Now the bums and bears think it is OK. Odd. They know more than ALL of Christendom did.
Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley said, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lordand it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”
So you admit NOTHING in Scripture supports the use of artificial birth control, right?
Um, dear, read my post again. I asked you to show from scripture where birth control is a sin.
Show me where I said it was ok please.
Still playing the girly boy eh? Y’all asked a question in response to mine. You seem not to have the answer to mine, why? You appointed your self the popess of all Christendom, tell us from your perch why you think artificial birth control is not sinful. Or clutch at your pearls and totter off.
Into personal name calling now ey? Show me where I said it was either wrong or right. I simply asked you to show from scripture where it was wrong and you can’t do it.
ROTFLMAO, you really are a hoot.
How is that different than using a condom?
It’s all they have when they can’t support their position or answer a question.
Chalk it up as point made and not refuted and shake the dust off.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
See above. They answer questions with questions then “declare victory” as they make this about other freepers rather than engaging in honest dialogue.
“Its all they have when they cant support their position or answer a question.”
It is not acceptable however to personalize the debate, it causes flame wars.
As usual, the basic question I actually asked gets side-stepped once again. Perhaps you are ignorant that there was no such thing as "artificial" contraception back in the 1930s? The "pill" didn't come about until the 60s. Up till then there were abortion (which we all condemn), condoms, withdrawal method, and, oh, yeah, that's right...the Catholic approved Rhythm Method. I already said I don't agree with ANY type of contraception that destroys human life (such as the IUD and the pill which prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall). Barrier methods don't do that JUST AS the rhythm method and NFP don't also. So the "seed" of man gets wasted even in those cases - but way back then they thought the sperm CONTAINED the tiny baby. Science has since proved it doesn't. Going by your church's guidelines, a man or boy who has a "wet dream" commits a mortal sin!
So are you going to answer the question of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in allowing a few forms of contraception - and, yes, the RM and NFP are forms of it - but calling barrier methods or withdrawal "mortal" sins?
In post #13 when I responded to you, I said there is a difference between a physical or chemical barrier and a barrier of self-control.
The one is an underscored, “we will ascend to the hill of God.” (Is 14: 13 You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”)
The other is a spiritual prayer saying, “help us, Lord, if it be Your will, with this period of celibacy.” And that temporary celibacy is endorsed by the Apostle Paul who wrote: “1 Co 7: 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.”
A *sin* so allegedly destructive and damning to the soul that God never makes mention of it anywhere in Scripture other than one alleged verse concerning Onan?
If it was such a sin or big deal, then why didn’t God emphasize it far more in Scripture, like he does for other sins like murder, adultery, lying, cheating, slander, etc?
One verse that can have another legitimate interpretation of why God slew Onan and the Catholic church runs with it. It develops a doctrine and then uses one interpretation of this verse to support their doctrine.
FWIW, NFP is contraception, no different than what Onan did. It’s for the purpose of sexual activity without the risk of getting pregnant, the very thing that Catholics condemn Onan for.
Catholics who use NFP are no different.
The hypocrisy of the Catholic(s) position abounds.