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.
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 can’t come up with a basis from scripture why don’t you just say so?
And, up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
100%
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 Lord—and 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.
Exactly.......
How is that different than using a condom?
It isn't.
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.