the Christian truth about the evil of birth control

[CatholicXian]

The Rhythm Method is not the same as the Sympto-Thermal Method. NFP has come a LOOOOOOOONG way in recent years and is probably the most effective form for spacing births. There are many NFP methods, Sympto-Thermal is but one. The Creighton and Billings models are probably the most popular these days, and these methods involve a great deal more than simply following a woman's menstrual cycle: temperature, cervical mucus, etc. are usually involved as well. (Also, breastfeeding is one of the easiest and most natural ways to space out children... usually a woman who consistently breastfeeds her baby wouldn't likely conceive for 18-24 months... just another reason why breastfeeding is best--for both baby and mom!)

All that being said, NFP can be abused. As Vic aptly pointed out, spouses can view NFP as just a "natural form of birth control". NFP is not promoted as the Catholic alternative to birth control. NFP is permissible. In grave circumstances wherein it would be prudent to refrain from conceiving a child, husband and wife may use NFP to space out the birth(s) of their children until a more appropriate time for conceiving new life comes about.

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.

Babies are blessings! God blessed Adam and Eve by telling them to "be fruitful and multiply" and then said the same thing to Noah and his family after the flood, and promised to make Abraham's descents as numerous as the stars... and on the flip side of that, barrenness was viewed as a curse.

...and from a simply practical perspective, a fertility is the only thing we try to "fix" when it's not broken (we even casually call it "getting fixed"). Condoms, expensive and risky surgeries, and chemicals that we pump into our bodies to "fix" our fertility only serve to alienate spouses from the natural blessing of sexual intercourse/the marital embrace. God's plans are perfect. He designed sexual intercourse as the means through the miracle of new life is co-created because it was the perfect way for spouses to co-operate with Him in bringing new life into the world.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

But remember: No matter WHAT the method, if you are not prayerfully discerning when God wants you to have children - if you are just using it as another form of birth control, then it is still bad.

 

[Imagican]

We LIVE in a 'secular' world. To even THINK that OUR JOB is to 'save' the WORLD is UTTER futility. Christ CAME to 'save' those of this world that SO choose to BE 'saved'. The REST that CHOOSE NOT to accept what has been offered will perish without the gift of life.

The World will NOT be conformed to a 'Christian' view NO MATTER what efforts are made BY THE CHURCH to alter it. That power to change 'this WORLD' is NOT contained within the ABILITY of 'human beings' other than FOR THE WORSE,(and NOT ALWAYS are we able to CLEARLY SEE the TRUTH. For MANY things that may SEEM to be 'better' on this planet, when judged according to righteousness, we will MOST LIKELY find that they are NOT what they APPEARED to BE).

Ours is to but OFFER in word and EXAMPLE the TRUTH concerning God and HIS creation.

If the WORLD believes that it has the ability to ignore the truth, that is THEIR decision and we CANNOT MAKE the world CONFORM to what God has offered. THAT is WHY this earth as we know it will one day BE DESTROYED and PURIFIED of the 'evil' that exists in it.

Birth control is NO DIFFERENT than the DEATH penalty. Christ TAUGHT 'forgiveness'. That the 'world' would choose to put individuals to DEATH for their crimes is NO DIFFERENT than a woman deciding that she would rather MURDER her unborn child than DEAL with the life that SHE ALLOWED into 'creation'. It is a decision that she will ultimately one day face judgement for. :And EVEN her JUDGEMENT is not OURS to make. SHE will be the one that is JUDGED by her mistake and RIGHTEOUSLY so by Our Father. Ours is BUT TO TEACH and HOPE that others WILL conform to the righteousness that God IS able to offer EVEN IN THIS LIFE.

Is abortion EVIL? I would say that it is MOST certainly NOT 'righteous'. Is it MORE evil than "HATING ONE'S Neighbor"? I don't THINK so. But we ALL should CERTAINLY kNOW without a doubt in our heart that they are BOTH 'unrighteous', and therefore we should conform our understanding and behavior towards a 'better way'.



MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well MEC, I think you are wrong. (Are you suprised?) In essensce, birth control is saying to God: WE decide when life comes into the world, not you!

 

[handy]

Onan had no business being with Tamar if he refused to impregnate her. For all intents and purposes, he raped Tamar, thus bringing God's wrath against him.

Let's revisit Biblical reasons for the supposed sin of bithcontrol: Other than the Onan story, and I believe that the 'sin' of Onan was the misuse of Tamar, not of his sperm, what other Biblical passages are there that even speak to the subject?

 

[Free]

Matthew 5:27-28, 27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What was Jesus' point? It's the posture of the heart.

So whether one chooses a natural method of birth control or un-natural, if the whole point is to avoid getting pregnant, this would be a sin, according to some here.

To say that every time a husband and wife desire sex that no birth control is to be used, is utterly irresponsible.

The sin of Onan had nothing to do with his spilling sperm.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Let's revisit Biblical reasons for the supposed sin of bithcontrol: Other than the Onan story, and I believe that the 'sin' of Onan was the misuse of Tamar, not of his sperm, what other Biblical passages are there that even speak to the subject?

I don't think its that simple. This theology is a bit more in depth than just looking for scripture verses would allow.

But, since I quoted Pope Paul VI in "Humanae Vitae", I shall also quote from some of my other Christian brethren:

RICK AND JAN HESS ( NON-DENOMINATIONAL):
"The difference between revival and judgment may rest on whether our hearts are turned toward welcoming our present and future children. Without question, the church today does not love children. A bad attitude toward children brings a curse. A miserly attitude toward children makes God miserly toward us. But an openhearted, generous desire for and appreciation of children as God’s good gifts inclines God to trust us with many more good giftsâ€â€gifts we have not even seen for over 150 years now and can scarcely imagine" (A Full Quiver).


MICHAEL HIRSCH ( REFORMED):
"How will God punish us for having as many children as he dictates? Will he say, ‘Because you were not good stewards and did not use birth control, you will have childrenâ€â€and lots of them. In addition, you will starve and die a hideous death. The unregenerate will have rule over you"? Sounds more like the great and powerful Oz than the God of the Bible. And much of modern American Christendom responds, ‘If I only had a brain’" ("Mountains for the Taking" in Biblical Worldview).


PHIL LANCASTER ( NON-DENOMINATIONAL):
"Notice how the Christian arguments in favor of birth control have proliferated at the same time as the abortion mentality has established its death grip on our culture. Culturally, the birth control mindset is the mother of abortion. Both celebrate choice; both view children as a burden; both ignore God’s plan for multiplying children as a vehicle for the spread of his kingdom. Christians have been immersed in the polluted well of humanist thought, and, though most may have rejected the overt philosophy of humanism, they have nonetheless conformed their practice to that which grows from the humanist worldview . . . the Christian who is challenged on [the subject of birth control] would do well to consider if his practice is the fruit of the Word or of the world" (Patriarch magazine).


SAMUEL OWEN ( NON-DENOMINATIONAL):
"While it is true that no child should be born unwanted, that does not mean a husband and wife should prevent his birth. Rather, they should change their attitude. As Christians, they must reject the prevalent narcissistic control mentality that causes couples to not want children. They must embrace instead the biblical perspective that bearing children is their responsibility and privilege. For believers, every child should be wanted and received as a precious gift" (Letting God Plan Your Family).


ARTHUR PINK ( BAPTIST):
"We do not believe in what is termed ‘birth control,’ but we do earnestly urge self-control, especially by the husband, ‘But whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.’ This is a most solemn warning against unfaithfulness; those who live and die impenitently in these sins will eternally perish (Eph. 5:5)" (Commentary on Hebrews).


MARY PRIDE ( PRESBYTERIAN):
"There is an alternative to scheming and plotting how many babies to have and when to have them. It can be summed up in three little words: trust and obey . . . Only God knows the future. Only he knows how much money we will have next year, or when I will reach menopause, or when his Kingdom will desperately need the unique talents of my yet-to-be-conceived son or daughter. Why not leave the driving to him?" (The Way Home).


CHARLES PROVAN ( PRESBYTERIAN):
"Many Christians today have not even considered the question, ‘What does God think of birth control?’ It is a question ‘too stupid to even consider’ in the eyes of most. . . . But just because Americans think that birth control is morally acceptable does not make birth control right in the eyes of God. . . . You may be surprised that the Bible does in fact ay quite a bit about this widespread customâ€â€all of it negative" (The Bible and Birth Control).

 

[handy]

Sorry, CC, but I can pull up just as many authoratative quotes that would place birth control choice as a liberty, rather than a sin. We would wind up going around and around doing it this way.

But, if the Body of Christ is going to point to birth control as a MORTAL sin, surely then God would have condemned as such in the Word. Or, if every married couple were to only have sex for the purposes of procreation ONLY and for no other purpose, surely then God would have made this commandment as clear as well.

MEC, you're RUBBING off on me! :wink:

The sin of Onan wasn't that he 'spilled his seed' but that he both refused to obey the law, and used Tamar in a shameful manner. Other than the whole Onan story, the Bible is very quiet on the subject of a married couple choosing to practise birth control.

Earlier in this thread I shared that I'm unable to have children, not unwilling, just unable. According to this statement made by Biblecatholic earlier:

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural endâ€â€procreation.

It seems as though the logic is getting a bit wonky here: It's a mortal sin to have sex unless the purpose is to procreate, but it's OK if infertility is a problem and the couple knows that the act won't produce children barring a miracle, which God could pull off even with bc being used, HOWEVER, it's not OK to use non-abortifacient methods of birth control because the ONLY purpose of sex is to procreate. :crazyeyes:

So, in order to clear this up, I think we should really search the Scriptures and see if indeed a case can be made for declaring bc, including nfp, as a mortal sin.

BTW, I would totally agree that any abortifacient methods of bc would indeed be sin, for all the same reasons that abortion itself is sinful.

 

[CatholicXian]

So whether one chooses a natural method of birth control or un-natural, if the whole point is to avoid getting pregnant, this would be a sin, according to some here.

If the point is to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, yes, it's a sin

To say that every time a husband and wife desire sex that no birth control is to be used, is utterly irresponsible.

1. Conception is not possible every time a husband and wife have sex. There are times when a woman's body is naturally infertile. Thus, just because a husband and wife have sex without artificial birth control does not mean they will become pregnant.

2. The Catholic Church does not propose irresponsible parenthood. In fact, she proposes the exact opposite. I even purposefully bolded those phrases in the excerpt from "Humanae Vitae" above...

 

[Devekut]

The position against birth control is quite sound.

What it basically comes down to is that to deliberately close the marriage bed to pro-creation is to obstruct one of the natural purposes of sex. This is not to say that sex is not about "uniting" the two in love, only that the act has to be considered in all of its natural dimensions.

I think the results of birth control in our society have been quite clear. Birth control, in the popular mind, has effectively separated pro-creation from sexuality. This is an unnatural division. People no longer have to regard the life giving capacity that is, by nature, inherent to intercourse.

Don't you see that this has made a massive contribution to the acceptance of abortion? Since birth control allows us to have sex without consequences, the result is that the fetus has become a consequence. When birth control does not prevent conception, the next logical step is to remove what has been conceived. This is seen as permissible because the pro-creative nature of sex is already seen as something that can be removed at our good pleasure and convienence.

 

[handy]

So whether one chooses a natural method of birth control or un-natural, if the whole point is to avoid getting pregnant, this would be a sin, according to some here.

If the point is to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, yes, it's a sin

It's is just this sort of dogmatic pronoucement that I'd like to get a foundation for.

I'm all for following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. Therefore, when a man looks upon a woman lustfully, he is violating the spirit of the law: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

If a woman destroys the life within her womb, she is violating "Thou shalt not commit murder."

If one vows to give all the profits of a sale of real estate to the Lord, but only gives about 50%, then he is violating "Thou shalt not lie" and "Thou shalt not steal" since the vow obligates him to give the full 100%.

What I'm trying to figure out here is just what Law, non-abortifacient birth control is violating?

 

[Devekut]

Handy,

ABC creates an unnatural division within the sexual act that is intended so by the people involved. It separtes human sexuality from pro-creation, it separates the unitive aspect of intercourse from the life giving aspect, it turns the life giving capacity of sexuality into something that we can remove at our pleasure.

This violates natural law. In my previous post I suggest this makes quite the contribution to the secular acceptance of abortion.

To be infertile, is in the strictest sense, also unnatural. But in the sense that it is separate from one's will or intention, it can not be held against one as sin.

For all we know, you may well be infertile precisely so you would adopt. This would be part of the Divine plan. The difference is that this was not your choice. ABC is the choice of the couple to resist nature.

The sin is to wilfully separate human sexuality from pro-creation. A violation of the natural law.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Well, I might as well put my thought on this. Although God said "be fruitful and multiply" the parents have the right to decide if a child is to be born the same way God decides who is to be born again. We are created in God's image, and have the same responsibility being that we were given dominion over the Earth. So, be we good gods or bad gods, we are still like Him with that power of choice. God can still choose to create a child. Now try to reconcile that. This gets off on the free choice vs. predestination topic which so many people were vehement about. Actually BOTH coexist if you want the honest truth.

Birth control is just a physical barrier to what one already made up their minds about, just like withdrawl. The story of Onan has nothing to do with that concept, but the fact that the line of Judah was not being perpetuated and despised because of selfishness, when indeed God had great promises for them.

Now, before some come down on me hard---- let me ask you all another thing. Are you with your first wife yet (like I am) , or are you on a "marry-go-round"? I think that is FAR more important than shacking up with someone else and having kids by them because "God said so". Yeah, right.

 

[darkwater]

Birth control is just a physical barrier to what one already made up their minds about, just like withdrawl. The story of Onan has nothing to do with that concept, but the fact that the line of Judah was not being perpetuated and despised because of selfishness, when indeed God had great promises for them.

You are quite right about it being a physical barrier to something that has already been decided. It is quite a selfish thought process. The sexual act is meant to be giving and holding back on the act of creation is just plain selfish. Is it any wonder that as contraceptive use has increased divorces have as well? Couples are no longer fully giving of themselves.

To me, contraceptives are totally disgusting. Sex is supposed to be beautiful, it is God's masterpiece. To take it and utterly destroy it by perverting it and ripping it apart like using contraceptives does is just like a cook running his hand through human feces before making your dinner. It is repulsive.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, condemnation of contraception was universal in main-line protestant denominations until 1930 when the Anglicans decided to drop the ban. After that, it seems that protestants couldn't get rid of the ban fast enough. It's rather sad, really. The vast majority of people who consider themselves religious Christians use contraceptives! Sickening.

Now, before some come down on me hard---- let me ask you all another thing. Are you with your first wife yet (like I am) , or are you on a "marry-go-round"? I think that is FAR more important than shacking up with someone else and having kids by them because "God said so". Yeah, right.

What? :crazyeyes: I don't think anyone is suggesting polygammy here or that you should ditch your wife in favor of more fertile grounds.

 

[Veritas]

If the point is to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, yes, it's a sin

Can it be possible to avoid pregnacy and have intercourse for non-selfish reasons? What if the married parents want to be in union with one another but also desire to have money saved or a good house setup before they have children?

That said, I do agree that probably more people out there are using birth-control for purely selfish reasons. I do think the Catholic stance errs on the safe side if nothing else. I just keep thinking of all this other "modern" odd stuff happening like surrogate mothers and such... it's too bad a line is not drawn somewhere.

 

[darkwater]

Now they are trying for artificial sperm! :o

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...If the point is to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, yes, it's a sin...

How come I can never just put things simply like that !!! :

 

[handy]

If the point is to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons, yes, it's a sin

Can it be possible to avoid pregnacy and have intercourse for non-selfish reasons? What if the married parents want to be in union with one another but also desire to have money saved or a good house setup before they have children?

I agree. I do believe that there can be a variety of non-selfish reasons for wanting intimacy with one's spouse without having the concern of child-bearing. This is why I'm wondering why the condemnation that bc is always a sin.

ABC creates an unnatural division within the sexual act that is intended so by the people involved. It separtes human sexuality from pro-creation, it separates the unitive aspect of intercourse from the life giving aspect, it turns the life giving capacity of sexuality into something that we can remove at our pleasure.

This violates natural law. In my previous post I suggest this makes quite the contribution to the secular acceptance of abortion.

To be infertile, is in the strictest sense, also unnatural. But in the sense that it is separate from one's will or intention, it can not be held against one as sin.

For all we know, you may well be infertile precisely so you would adopt. This would be part of the Divine plan. The difference is that this was not your choice. ABC is the choice of the couple to resist nature.

The sin is to wilfully separate human sexuality from pro-creation. A violation of the natural law.

Using the same logic, whenever someone eats chips and pop without being actively hungry, then one is also violating natural law. Natural law dictates that the main purpose for eating is nutrition. That we might also enjoy eating is a bonus so to speak, just as the joy of intimacy is a bonus to procreation. If I decide, hmmm, feel like a snack, and decide to eat some chips and a pop, I've violated the natural law governing eating. A: I'm not hungry and B: there is no nutrition in what I've eaten. Using the logic you've used here, I've just committed not only a sin, but a mortal sin at that. In reality, Pepsi and Ruffles are just as resistant to nature as ABC.

ABC creates an unnatural division within the sexual act that is intended so by the people involved.

Is it just ABC (which I presume refers to artifical methods) that creates the unnatural division or are NBC methods just as sinful. Please expound on the answer because I think it's a little strange that NBC would be OK, but ABC would be mortal sin. (Not to mention CBS and FOX!...sorry, couldn't resist!)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Has anyone actually read Humanae Vitae? Here is a link:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_ ... ae_en.html

 

[handy]

With all due respect CC, the problem that I have with the Humanae Vitae is that it's foundation is in based upon a rather large assumption, that is:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

Not to be disrespectful of the Pope, but members of the faithful (me included) actually do deny that the RCC is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact, most disputable as any casual perusal of this forum can attest to.

I'm in no way a 'sola scriptura' adherent, and I do recognize the Body of Christ's authority and responsibility to uphold God's commandments here on earth. But, in order to uphold God's commandments, we need to be able to point to the most authoratative source we have of God's commandments, and that is the Word itself. That the Church can interpret the Word, I'll grant, although not via any divine power that Jesus communicated to Peter, but rather by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the body of believers.

This is why I would seek the answer to this question of birth control within the Scriptures. We already have very authoratative commandments on murder, adultery, deceitfulness, theft, coveting, and a myriad of other moral issues.

However, I'm more than willing to meet halfway here, (which granted is easy for me as I don't use any kind of bc anyway) and conceed this entire point of birth control if someone can show me from the Scriptures where the Body of Christ is not guardian and interpreter of God's moral law, but also of natural law as well.