U.S. Archbishop: Using Contraception is Always ‘Evil’

LifeSite News ^ | 6/5/18 | Lisa Bourne

[Elsie]

For instance,it would be a sin with direct nontherapeutic intent to disable the prefrontal lobe of your brain, maim your genitals, remove a normal eye or an ear for sheer preference, or intentionally (intentionally) put your sperm anywhere but in your wife's genital tract.

HMMMmmm...

[Elsie]

Remember the Queen of the South and the men of Ninevah.

Ezekiel 23:20–21 

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

[Elsie]

Some are rare (e.g. inability to achieve normal intercourse), some are rarer (sickness/hospitalization of one or both spouses) and one is so rare as to be singular (your wife is God's baby-mama.)

---

 

 

The Roman Catholic Church  has turned the beautiful, blessed lady of Scripture into an asexual, frigid Jewish wife; who withheld her favors from Joseph for no rational reason.

 

1 Corinthians 7:1-40 ESV 

... each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.

Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

 

 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer;

but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

 

Catholics really have some SICK ideas about Mary and Joseph's NON-existance sex life!!!

[Elsie]

You know, you've somehow put your finger on the exact problem.

I..
Must...
Resist...

[Elsie]

I am a big fan of restoring the normal.

But it is NORMAL for men to lose the 'power' as they age.

NOW you want to INTERFER with what GOD has designed??

[Elsie]

I’m always curious as to why it is so important to you and others whether or not they did.

Really?

This is quite laughable!

---

So you’re saying that somewhere in New testament writings that states irrefutably that Mary and Joseph DID NOT HAVE normal marital relations?

[Elsie]

You prefer to believe that Mary was in no way affected by the experience and proceeded with life as if nothing unusual happened.

Yeah; that Immanuel kid was such a handful growing up that Mary had no energy leftover for any others!

[Elsie]

He made a judgment, not subjectively (about any individual), but objectively (about deeds).

Yeah.

Why use a teeny trim brush when you can tar a LOT faster with a great, big one!

[Shethink13]

The Roman Catholic Church has turned the beautiful, blessed lady of Scripture into an asexual, frigid Jewish wife; who withheld her favors from Joseph for no rational reason.

So you don’t think Joseph was also chosen? Who do you suppose put the notion into Joseph’s head whilst he slept that it was ok to take Mary as his wife? It’s not possible that they mutually agreed on abstinence? It has to be that Joseph couldn’t keep his pants up and Mary was just denying him his marital rights?

You never answered me as to why this belief seems to get your panties in a serious wad. Why do you care so much? Why can’t it just be that scripture is silent on the issue because it doesn’t really matter in the whole scheme of Salvation and we should all be free to believe what we wish?

[Shethink13]

Yeah; that Immanuel kid was such a handful growing up that Mary had no energy leftover for any others!

This is exactly what I’m talking about. What is it about this that gets you so riled up that you always have to have some kind of snarky retort to ridicule someone’s honest beliefs?

Am I debating with a guilty conscience? Is it that you know in your heart that artificial contraception is inherently evil but since you practice it yourself you’re attempting to convince yourself you’re right?

Kind of like women who have had abortions defending their actions with twisted logic?

Or is it a version of Catholic Derangement Syndrome? Anything a Catholic is for, I’m against?

I honestly want to know, no joke.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Stating a moral principle is not tarring anybody with any brush, wide or narrow. It is not passing a personal judgment. It is straight pastoral teaching. The Archbishop is doing his job, which I wish all of them would.

This is quite different from naming somebody and saying they are not in a state of grace, which would be saying something one cannot know: another person's interior disposition.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Stating a moral principle is not tarring anybody with any brush, wide or narrow. It is not passing a personal judgment. It is straight pastoral teaching. The Archbishop is doing his job, which I wish all of them would.

This is quite different from naming somebody and saying they are not in a state of grace, which would be saying something one cannot know: another person's interior disposition.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The ability to get and sustain a satisfactory erection is an aspect of sexual health, A disability to do so (whether from malformation, age, disease, or injury) means a loss of sexual health. Although malformation, age, disease, and injury may happen in nature, you can't say they represent health.

Legitimate medicine aims for healthy function, not disability. This is true even if that disability is typical for older men because of the condition of their blood vessels (disease conditions that block blood flow to the penis, such as atherosclerosis or diabetes.)

It is legitimate to treat a disability.

It is not legitimate to deliberately produce a disability.

That's why the "little blue pills" are not analogous to the contraceptive pill. The first one reverses a loss of function; the other one achieves a loss of function.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The ability to get and sustain a satisfactory erection is an aspect of sexual health, A disability to do so (whether from malformation, age, disease, or injury) means a loss of sexual health. Although malformation, age, disease, and injury may happen in nature, you can't say they represent health.

Legitimate medicine aims for healthy function, not disability. This is true even if that disability is typical for older men because of the condition of their blood vessels (disease conditions that block blood flow to the penis, such as atherosclerosis or diabetes.)

It is legitimate to treat a disability.

It is not legitimate to deliberately produce a disability.

That's why the "little blue pills" are not analogous to the contraceptive pill. The first one reverses a loss of function; the other one achieves a loss of function.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not strange. Sacred things are often to be kept covered, out of respect. E.g. the veil of the temple.

[boatbums]

He pointed out that what is objectively wrong, is objectively wrong. That's his job.

Tell me, does something that is objectively wrong mean it is ALWAYS wrong with no exceptions? Please clarify.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If you want to use the Onan story (as Catholicism does)..."

Boatbums.

It's as *all* Christians did until the Anglicans broke ranks.

Eventually, (almost) all the rest ended up revising their theology in order to conform to what was, in August 1930, a shocking act of "Lambeth liberalism."

As the various Protestant denominations formed, starting 500 years ago, their founders and leaders condemned contraception in the strongest possible terms. John Calvin called the practice of contraception “condemned” and “doubly monstrous.” John Wesley said that contraception is “very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections.” Martin Luther called those who used contraceptives “logs,” “stock,” and “swine.” Check out the history! You'll not find any Protestant denomination whose leaders did not condemn contraception explicitly and forcefully, linking it to Onan's sin, before 1930.

These included Luther, Calvin, Calvinists Jacob Alting, Robert S. Candlish, and Cotton Mather; Evangelicals Keith Leroy Brooks and Thomas H. Leale; Huguenot Jean Mercier; Lutherans Johann Albrecht Bengel, Johannes Brunnemann, and Abraham Calovius; Methodists Adam Clarke and Richard Watson; Nonconformists Henry Ainsworth, Daniel Defoe, and John Gill; Presbyterians John Brown, Robert Dabney, and Melancthon W. Jacobus; and Puritans Richard Stock and John Trapp.

All wrong until they decided to follow the lead of Anglican liberals, hey?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You did not respond to the point I made that abstinence from sex in marriage is --- not often--- but sometimes, rarely, appropriate:

• Rare: because of inability to achieve normal intercourse,
• Rarer: because of sickness/hospitalization of one or both spouses,
• Rarest: because your wife is God's baby-mama.

That doesn't indicate there's something intrinsically wrong with marital sex. Far from it. It means that there can exist exceptional circumstances.

Or don't you think these are exceptional circumstances?

[boatbums]

It's not all that remarkable that you seem to keep on missing my point here.

Did you leave out the context of this universal abhorrence? People have been trying to control birth since the dawn of sex. As long as we’ve been trying to make babies, we’ve been trying not to make babies. Were these baby-making-avoiding people your run of the mill husbands and wives or were they those engaged in illicit sex - prostitutes, adulterers, the promiscuous?

It wasn't until the early twentieth century that scientists discovered how babies actually got made - the process of fertilization and implantation. It used to be the male sperm was thought to contain the "seed" of a little human. There was a lot to be learned about the subject and UNLEARNED. You can't really take what some people thought a thousand or even a hundred years ago and force it into what we know today. Those religious leaders had every right to teach and believe what they did but they aren't God.

I stand by my earlier assertions that what a married couple decides is best for their family is between them and God and as long as it does not break God's commands it should stay that way. You are free to disagree.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It should be obvious that I quote the (until the 20th century) historic Protestant consensus against contraception, not because I (a Catholic) think they had authority, but because in this area, they retained a respect for the Scriptural worldview, Biblical authority.