Replies

While I don't necessarily agree with your statement about contraception leading individual couples to moral decay, I do applaud your use of NFP. My wife and I have three beautiful children, but do not intend to have any more naturally. Only our second child was actually planned...the other two were surprises. During the third pregnancy we decided that I would get a vasectomy, which I did shortly before the birth of our third child. I have since questioned whether it was the right course of action. I hadn't really heard much about alternative and more Biblical means of family planning until after the operation.

I do know people who've had vasectomies and later in life ended up parents anew anyway, so I'm confident at this point that if I'm meant to father another child it will happen. When we first discussed this we had decided that if we wished to have any more children from that point on, we would adopt. We have a lot to offer to a child who needs two loving Christian parents.

I've heard a lot of debate over contraception recently, and I'm still undecided on what the Biblical position truly is. In any case, I have great admiration for those who can and do have many children.

I believe that one of the biggest misconceptions about NFP is that "oh, that's for people who want large families." Nothing is further than the truth.

When practiced properly, NFP is more effective than ANY OTHER FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. Check out the information at the Couple to Couple League website which shows the studies done with NFP.

As for myself, I would love to have a large family but financially it's difficult. We have a five year spacing between my second child and my third, and planned it practically to the day. My OB told me if I didn't go artificial birth control that I would be in "within a year" pregnant again. I said no, five years. I was right.

The "no" to life, which the use of contraceptives cries out by its very name, can thus be seen first and foremost as a "no to God". This had already been forcefully stressed by Paul VI in Humanae vitae. This passage also bears repeating in its entirety: "... a reciprocal act of love, which jeopardizes the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, according to particular laws, inserted therein, is in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage, and with the will of the Author of Life., To use this divine gift while destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and his will" (n. 13).

Here's some biblical references:

The Bible and Birth Control
The book of Genesis is the primary reference for the prohibition on contraception. The basis for marriage is given in Genesis, "male and female he created them"(1:27)..."and they become one flesh" (2:24). The first institution mentioned in the Bible is the family. The first commandment of God to man is "Be fruitful and multiply"(1:28). So we know that in God's intention for Man, before the Fall, men and women were meant to be paired and become "one flesh", in order to fulfil the commandment in 1:28. The original intent was monogamous, lifetime union.
But in Genesis 38, we find the story of Tamar and Onan. Tamar was married to Er, but Er died before they had any children. Following a custom called the "Law of the Levirate", Er's brother Onan is commanded by Judah (their father) to have intercourse with Tamar.

38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother".
38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
38:10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

Several things about this passage are significant. The Law of the Levirate was a mechanism for preserving and perpetuating a family line. But the penalty for not following it was not serious; if a brother refused to perform his duty, the offended sister-in-law could publicly strike him on the face with his sandal, and henceforth he would be surnamed "The Unshod". The death penalty was not involved. But 38:10 informs us that God considered this incident more than a mere refusal of duty; it was such a serious offence that He slew Onan.
For 19 centuries, until 1930 in fact, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox commentators were in unanimous agreement on their interpretation of this passage: Onan attempted to have the pleasure of intercourse, but defrauded it of its procreative meaning by withdrawing. That this was a violation of the earlier commandments in Genesis was underscored by the magnitude of the divine penalty - God apparently took this very seriously!

Contraception takes life-giving out of conjugal love, and turns marital love into a selfish, anti-life act.

This is my opinion, of course, supported by the Catholic Church and an increasing number of Protestants. I hope this helps you understand that our position is biblically based.

God bless!!!!