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.
So this is the big kahuna with you, huh?
Often I see heretics hung up on sexual issues. Divorce, extra and premarital sex, contraception all seem to get into their heads as entitlements, and thus not sinful.
@ narses...Do you ever post stuff with intelligence? Or is everything you do to mock and deride, like every other leftist out there, never any real substance to you or your thoughts?
That's not even remotely suggested in a careful reading of that passage.
It's a very loose interpretation to get THAT out of it.
And what is your scripture for using condoms to prevent conception?
When God is dealing with sin, He tells us what NOT to do. Show us where God prohibits condom use.
By your reasoning, we shouldn't use guns because they're not natural and God doesn't tell us to use them. After all, people can use guns to kill others. That's what they're designed for. Since guns can take a life, no Christian should have one, then, right?
I used to do what you're doing
...when I was in grade school.
Time to grow up and let the adults converse.
We might disagree, but we don't resort to childish pictures repeatedly posted, trying to make a point that isn't there.
No. Just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy to the Catholics who advocate for one form of birth control that allows for sexual activity without the consequence of pregnancy over another of which they don't approve.
Prohibiting or interfering with the natural course of things in regard to conception is prohibiting or interfering with the natural course of things in regard to conception, be it barrier methods or rhythm methods. Preventing conception is preventing conception.
If the issue is preventing conception, then it's wrong no matter WHAT method is being used. It' isn't OK just because the Church approves one over another.
Of course, considering that it's the same church that offers church sanctioned divorce relabeled and repackaged as *annulment*, it's no surprise to anyone.
Hypocrisy at every turn.
Yawn.
If there is a chance for intelligent dialogue - I post words. When heretics, idiots and blind bigots are involved, well, no point in casting pearls before swine, as the Good Book teaches, right?
No.
Yes.
There’s the love of Christ in action for you.
Clearly the Catholic church has washed its hands of heretics like us.
And then Catholics wonder why people are not running back into its arms, or why we say *No thanks* to those who feign empathy for us.
It’s all well and good as long as they think that they can get you back. But turn them down, and they turn on you like a rabid pit bull.
Who needs it?
If there is a chance for intelligent dialogue - I post words. When heretics, idiots and blind bigots are involved, well, no point in casting pearls before swine, as the Good Book teaches, right? 
Clearly the Catholic church has washed its hands of heretics like us.
And then Catholics wonder why people are not running back into its arms, or why we say *No thanks* to those who feign empathy for us.
It’s all well and good as long as they think that they can get you back. But turn them down, and they turn on you like a rabid pit bull.
Who needs it?
You do realize that at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church did consider us anethma.
Yet you dare not look at the hypocrisy within Protestant and other non-Catholic churches?
Talk about bias! I guess if you want to play God in matters of contraception that is between you and God, correct?
Call me when you get that direct answer from God, OK?
Having read the story of Onan, and from my understanding of how NFP works...yeah, no. I think as Jules from “Pulp Fiction” would have put it, not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same sport.
Indeed. But to the heretics who agree on nothing EXCEPT a common hatred of the True Church, voila, it is the same!
Spiritual blindness is a sad sight indeed.
So true
That's simply not true, Metmom, and you know it. The passage does not limit the topics for prayer at all. And, if in their prayer, a couple prays about God's will for their family, then how is that unfaithful or unscriptural.
You are simply trying to limit someone's prayer when the scripture puts no limit on what they might be praying for.
And, the bottom line: the scripture DOES commend periods of celibacy between husbands and wives.
You have abdicated the argument with your inability to find scripture defending condom use. I have not found a scripture that says "natural family planning", but the concept of periods of prayerful celibacy was defended scripturally. You, on the other hand, have not defended your position that humans determine who should be born and when.
And as a lifelong advocate of the 2d amendment, your effort to say the bible does not support self-defense if it's with a gun is obviously in error. The concept of self-defense is throughout the bible.
So here is the deal, xzins - a respected Protestant Pastor lays out the rational case for the position that Christian thought has held and defended for two thousand years. metmom instead tries to argue that he, history and the Catholic Church are wrong and that he/she is right.
Boy, tough call. But I am going with what the Church teaches here. It is consistent with Scripture, with Holy Tradition, Natural Law and even simply reason.
And I will echo trisham in wishing all here - even the heretics who think such wishes and celebrations are pagan, a very Blessed Advent, a truly Holy and Merry Christmas and a healthy and Prosperous New Year.
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.