Posted on 12/20/2015 4:51:09 PM PST by ReformationFan
Catholics have said this all along. At least I have.
The truth is that once marriage is no longer about children, then how far and how perverse you want to make it is simply a question of degree.
The pill.....
Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
IMHO it was abortion on demand.
When mothers can kill babies the role of parent changed and morality died.
“The pill.....”
Yes, that was it. The pill, legal abortion as the fail safe for that, and no-fault divorce. But, really it was the pill that changed the world. We don’t call even asprin THE pill, it’s birth control that got that honorific.
Actually, it started with all those GIs returning home from WW2 having been exposed to European morays. The pill and contraception was a reaction.
It accelerated with contraception.
Venereal diseases acted as a far more effective brake against promiscuous men than contraception ever had or ever will. It also acts as a brake against women.
I will also point out that DNA testing has decreased the effect of contraception somewhat.
Both contraception and treatment of venereal disease pale as factors next to the big enchilada of spreading promiscuity.
Government welfare as financial supporter of any children engendered. This removed (albeit not completely) the financial burden promiscuity resulting in children. It created a vast underclass of women who pumped out children as if they were breeding stock to keep those government checks coming in.
That is true -the pill. What of it?
and Griswold v CT said contraception was a “fundamental right” which ushered in Roe v Wade (1973) and on and on.
But so what?
If Christians had rejected the Pill and had retained the birth rates of the 50s, as Catholics are taught (and fail to adhere to), do you think there would be enough secularists and immigrants in this country to elect an Obama in 2008?
Happy to hear it.
From Humanae Vitae, 7-25-68:
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
A think one of the Popes said it, too.
Better check history. For as long as people have understood that certain activity causes pregnancy, people have been looking at ways to avoid pregnancy. Contraceptives of one kind or another have been around for thousands of years. IIRC, they were found among King Tut's burial paraphernalia.
But not until very recently was
has there been effective, mass-produce-able B.C. and the will to use it en masse among the populace. Casanova’s “curiously-wrought whale-skin virginity cap” never really caught on. Modern B.C. has, and not at all for the better.
Started well before then, back in the 1920s.
Seems to me that argument would hold more weight if there were at least some Christian groups that officially accepted it a few centuries ago. To my understanding they all seemed to get on board after 1930ish or so which makes me think the ease and quantity of manufacture at least played some part.
Freegards
Which just destroyed his premise.
Contraception is more the symptom of the sin that was already in the heart. If the sin is there, the actions follow.
The action of sin never proceeds the inception in the heart.
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.