THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION

Priests for Life, Canada ^ | Professor Janet E. Smith, PhD

[Proud2BAmerican]

I understand and am aware of the changes made in the pill since the 60s. However, according to medical journals, it is still a fact that fertilized eggs are aborted that would otherwise have implanted in the uterus.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, use contraception.

----

Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, practice adultery. Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, practice white collar theft. Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, lie. Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, practice sodomy. Catholics, weekly-Mass going Catholics, support abortion.

.....

So what's your point? All of them are committing mortal sin and are in danger of eternal damnation.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Back off of your arrogance, buster. I ask a simple question, and you get on your high horse.

It does not require a crystal ball to discern where you are headed. Your record on Catholic issues here is dismal. You consistently take the liberal dissenting tack against your fellow Catholics here.

Catholics, use contraception. To the tune of 60-70%

Common sense or common apostacy? When the Son of Man returns, shall He find any faith?

Would you suggest defining morality by majority vote? Many Catholics approve of R v W and homosexual adoption and homosexual marriage. Must we follow the majority here too? What about euthanasia? Where does your majority vote morality end?

Is this how you see priests today?

Some priests, in dioceses such as Albany, Milwaukee, and others, yes. We have a "vocations crisis" only in those diocese where the priest have become an underpaid social worker class preaching an empty and easy gospel of dissent, confirming men and women in their mortal sinful lives.

people of goodwill ignore you.

I'd be willing to place the number of converts to my way of thinking here on FR against those falling for yours. God alone will judge who is being ignored, and further, who should be ignored.

You do more harm than good. Take the beam out of your own eye first, pal.

Tired, old cliches, but what one would expect of a tired and dying liberal philosophy.

[Proud2BAmerican]

If one were to use Natural Family Planning to prevent pregnancy in the same way one used contraception to prevent pregnancy, would that not lead to selfishness as well?

----

Yep, and I believe that's covered in official Church doctrine (though I don't recall where, off the top of my head). The important thing to remember is that even NFP can turn into a mortal sin if couples are manipulating the act of sexual intercourse so that they can buy a bigger house, or take a vacation to Paris, or buy a new Mercedes or something -- abstention has to be for a good, legitimate reason.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Only a fool, or one purposely trying to obfuscate, makes the charge that NFP is the rhythm method. It ain't.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

On another thread, sinkspur claimed he has never read Humanae vitae, and never heard of it (although on one thread he also claimed he had been in seminary at one time too, if my memory serves.) On this thread he claims "I'll put my devotion to the Church up against yours any damn day of the week!"

Seems to me there is a bit of cognitive dissonance here. I know of no truly devoted Catholic who has never heard of Humanae Vitae.

Furthermore, most truly devoted Catholics give assent to the teaching of Christ's Church. Instead sinkspur attacks it and denigrates it at every turn.

[Proud2BAmerican]

You don't, doctor, and I'll put my devotion to the Church up against yours any damn day of the week!

----

Guess you agree with the Church's infallible teaching on contraception then. ;-)

[Proud2BAmerican]

I'm old enough to remember when they called that the rhythm method.

----

FYI, NFP is not the same as the rhythm method -- I'm surprised you didn't know that. Methinks you ought to be going back and checking the rest of your facts. ;-)

[nopardons]

That is absolutely FALSE ! Prior to 1930, not EVERY Protestant had HUGE families. Neither did they use the " RYTHM METHOD " . Do you honestly believe that Protestants were NOT using prophylactics such as condoms , sponges, and diaphrams, with spermaide ? How naive of you ! Oh, and do NOT speak for peoples of other religions ; especially when you state such blatantly WRONG " opinions ".

FYI ... pessiaries, douching, cervical caps, and YES, condems, go back to at least 1850 B.C. !

[Proud2BAmerican]

On another thread, sinkspur claimed he has never read Humanae vitae, and never heard of it

----

Wow - that's pretty surprising to me. I can't imagine someone attempting to have an informed discussion on Catholic sexual morality and not be at least familiar with the general content of HV. I'm going to disagree with you though, and give Sink the benefit of the doubt -- maybe you're misremembering? I am fully aware of his ability to push the orthodox envelope just as far as he can without turning full-bore schismatic. ;-) But just the same, I'd be willing to guess he's pretty familiar with HV.

LOL, but seminary? If he got into a seminary, I'd have a hard time imagining the liberal, heretical nuns and brothers running some of those seminaries would kick him out for his orthodox views. ;-)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There are two camps in prolife, I call them the reasonable and the crazies

Only one who realizes that weeds have roots shall be successful in eradicating them. Only the camp that recognizes the roots of our current malaise, the Culture of Death, shall be successful in changing it.

There are only two options:

Strike at the roots of the Culture of Death, or join it. I choose to strike and thus to live...in the Culture of Life.

[nopardons]

Well, there ya go again ! Take your spurious OPINIONS , and use them on YOUR religion.

Roman Catholics, in the 1030's through the 1060's were FORBIDDEN to attend Protestant churchjes ; even for weddings and funerals. You have NO idea what Protestant churches were preaching, or NOT in 1930 - 1960 ! I am a Protestant, and let me inform you, that they were NOT saying that premarital sex was just fine and dandy in the 1940-1960's ! As a matter of fact , I STILL haven't be told, by a minister, that pre or extramarital sex is something okay. Jewish Rabbis don't council their flock, that that is okay, either.

What is WRONG with YOU ? You are always SO sensative about Catholocism, that even if someone mentions an historical fact about YOUR religion, YOU start screaming about " CATHOLIC BASHING " ; but now, you think that you can type ANYTHING at all , even complete and utter LIES about others, and get away with it ? WHY ?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

If you mean "Latin" is returning, you're a damned fool, and living in a dream world

You will search in vain to find any evidence that I embrace schismatic traditionalism. I am a child and a student of Vat II and I embrace it, as well as its mass.

Fool? Probably.

Damned? Not for you to judge.

[sinkspur]

On another thread, sinkspur claimed he has never read Humanae vitae, and never heard of it (although on one thread he also claimed he had been in seminary at one time too, if my memory serves.

Post a link to the thread, doctor, or you stand accused of lying.

Of course I've read Humanae Vitae. Many times.

Furthermore, most truly devoted Catholics give assent to the teaching of Christ's Church. Instead sinkspur attacks it and denigrates it at every turn.

Because I don't accuse every person I dialogue with about the Catholic Church of being in "mortal sin," you think I denigrate the Church.

I teach in the RCIA program in my parish, lector, and work with engaged couples.

What do you do, besides look under every bed?

[Proud2BAmerican]

He was making the historically accurate claim that prior to 1930, all of mainline Protestantism agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching that artificial contraception was morally reprehensible (not sure where you got off on the track of pre-marital sex). At the Lambeth Conference, around 1930, the Anglican Church accepted the use of artificial contraceptives in *certain* cases. This was soon expanded to any case, and eventually all of mainline Protestantism followed suit and caved on the issue. Historically, for nearly 2000 years, Christianity was united in its opposition to artificial contraception. The Catholic Church is the lone soldier holding up that standard now.

[sinkspur]

Guess you agree with the Church's infallible teaching on contraception then. ;-)

It is not infallible.

In point of fact, if you'll do a little reading on the subject, Paul VI explicitly crossed out the word "infallible" in the final copy of the encyclical.

[sinkspur]

LOL, but seminary? If he got into a seminary, I'd have a hard time imagining the liberal, heretical nuns and brothers running some of those seminaries would kick him out for his orthodox views. ;-)

Six years, at Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving (1969-1976); attended class at the University of Dallas, where the author of this article now teaches.

Ordained a deacon for the diocese of Ft. Worth in 1976.

Any more questions?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Before you jump on this thread and jump to conclusions, please re read my posts. I have NOT said that prior to 1930 protestants never used contraceptives. I have not said that protestants preached that fornication and adultery were OK after 1930. I do know that contraceptive technologies go back millenia.

I also know the teaching of protestant denomination, all of them prior to 1930. I am not giving my own opinion or speaking for them. I am simply stating the FACT that until 1930 ALL CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS, protestant, Catholic, orthodox, as well as orthodox judaism, taught that CONTRACEPTION IS INHERENTLY EVIL>

I am not speaking for anyone. I am just stating historical FACTS, easily proven.

you think that you can type ANYTHING at all , even complete and utter LIES about others

Prove where I typed utter lies about others on this thread.

From Protestants and Birth Control

Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel.
This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it
unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into 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."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the
ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills
the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is
possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and
untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has
thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part
of the human race.

Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great
abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone,
refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very
displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did
displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very
thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant
leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical,
Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non-
procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated,
"We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth
Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly
regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."

So what happened?

It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to
conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared
in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant
churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is
that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared,
"The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family
and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of
restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt
moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious
method.,"

but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that
other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."

By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most
Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon
the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such
ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."

The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches
in the 1900s.

A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty
years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians
before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.

[Silly]

Good article.

[Proud2BAmerican]

It is not infallible.

----

Uhh, yes it is.

The Catholic Church teaches infallible doctrine, both in faith and morals. This infallible teaching is done by the Church's extraordinary and by her ordinary universal authority or magisterium. E.G. - When the Pope solemnly defines a dogma of the faith; OR whenever her bishops, united with the Pope, proclaim that something is to be accepted by all the faithful. The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church's ordinary universal teaching authority.

Incidentally, as an RCIA teacher, I'm sure you're faithful to the Church and teach that using artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, as it states in the Catechism, right? ;-)