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.
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.
“It’s all they have when they can’t 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.
Oh, come on now. You can do better than that.
That verse says NOTHING about celibacy for the purpose of birth control. It's talking about NOT depriving each other for the purpose of *PRAYER AND FASTING NOT for the purpose of contraception.
But you are OK with contraception, right?
The hypocrisy of Catholic belief and practice is stunning. It’s not hard to imagine how Jesus felt when calling the Pharisees “a generation of vipers”.
Add to that the use if statues, images and the retention of pedophiles and homosexuals in the clergy. Then there is adding unbiblical beliefs and practices.
If you'll read the sentence again, I intentionally wrote that Paul endorsed temporary celibacy. Nothing more. It says "help us, Lord, if it be Your will, with this period of celibacy."
One can be temporarily praying and fasting for any number of reasons, and that to include God's plan for one's family.
The bottom line is that Paul endorses temporary celibacy for prayerful reasons. That prayer could well be God's plan for the family. In fact, a case can be made that bringing even conception before the throne of God is every bit as faithful than trusting conception to random happenstance.
And what is your scripture for using condoms to prevent conception?
And what is your scripture for using condoms to prevent conception?Indeed. And why are the opinions of those who hold that artificial contraception is NOT sinful in any way even remotely considered "Christian" when all of Christian teaching for 2000 years opposed that until the Anglicans embrace this evil less than 100 years ago?
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.In a stunning attack on Catholic belief and practice, the poster equates NFP to Onanism. Anyone care to offer corrections (yes, plural)?
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.