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.
If you have a complaint about a poster's style then send me a Freepmail.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
** Regardless, whether it’s RM or NFP**
It still appears you don’t know the difference between the rhythm method and Natural Family Planning. Have you checked into it?
Please do.
Yes, I do know the difference and, no, I don’t need either.
Baloney. It's avoiding having sex during a woman's fertile period.
It's the same thing repackaged and renamed. and dressed up.
The ones not fooled by the semantics are non-Catholics.
It's no different than the relabeled, repackaged church sanctioned divorces the Catholic church hands out under the guise of *annulments*.
You go, girl.
More male/female humor:
Q: What do you call an intelligent, good looking, sensitive man woman? A: A Rumour
Dear Lord, I pray for Wisdom to understand my manwoman; Love to forgive him her; And Patience for hisif I pray for Strength otherwise, I’ll beat him her to death. AMEN
Q: Why do little boys girls whine? A: They are practicing to be men women.
Q: What does it mean when a man woman is in your bed gasping for breath and calling your name? A: You did not hold the pillow down long enough.
Q: How do you keep your husband wife from reading your e-mail? A: Rename the mail folder ‘Instruction Manual’ 'Car Maintenance and Repair'
Sure. Your jokes are a real hoot.
Now that one's funny! Thanks.
It was answered honestly. I will pray that the Holy Spirit comes into your heart and opens your eyes.
Two other possibilities. One the vasectomy was done correctly, or they are only "half" brothers.
was = wasn’t
“kahuna”
What do mistresses of households, dog-owners, etc have to do with the comment?
http://www.huna.org/html/kahuna.html
Hey, answering questions with questions is only supposed to be a Protestant thingie (’cause they don’t know nuttin’) don’tcha know...
The devil is in the details
Good article and on point.
***snicker***
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.