the Christian truth about the evil of birth control

[darkwater]

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!)

Heh, I was going to make the TV comment there too :

The difference between NBC (like Natural Family Planning) is that it involves abstaining at some point so that a greater good may come out of it (like having kids when you have more money). That's it at a rather basic level.

Humanae Vitae does a really good job of talking about this, though. It really is an amazing work. Pope Paul VI also noted that contraception use would lead to a rise in abortion, which is of course the case. Many people now see abortion as a second line of defense if the first line fails.

 

[handy]

Tell you what: Although I don't ascribe to the magisterium, I will thoroughly read the Humanae Vitae as something written by a man with godly wisdom and see what it says.

Then I'll come back and argue some more!

OK, not really, but I'll come back and further discuss.

 

[darkwater]

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.

Well, you can't expect all the modern methods to be condemned, obviously.

Gen. 38:8-10 states that Onan was killed for spilling his seed (withdrawal birth control method). His death was not punishment for not doing his job to keep the family going as that was not punishable by death (see Deut. 25:7-10 & Gen. 38:11-26).

The biggest reason, however comes (as Paul VI mentions) from the very nature of marriage. In Matt. 19, Jesus says that the two shall become one. Marriage is a reflection of the trinity. The love shared by the husband and wife binds them, out of this love comes children (like the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son). By taking the sexual act and removing the procreative element, it is like removing the Holy Spirit from the Trinity.

Note what Paul says in Eph. 5: 25: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." Did Jesus only partly die for us? Did he just bleed a lot but then recover? De he tell the Romans, OK guys, enough of this, let me down now? No, he gave himself fully and completely to us, the Church. Anything less than this in marriage, Paul says is falling short.

We have had such a lowering in morality and understanding of both the sacredness of life and marriage that Pope Paul's letter was a needed update. Think of the time it was written! I think even if you do not accept the Pope as the Pope, that his letter should stand on its own. It certainly is not considered infallible on its own merit. It was not delivered ex-Cathedra. However, the teaching did not need to be defined in such a manner, it already exists. Pope Paul just needed to remind the world that it was there.

"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion." -Augustine

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many menâ€â€even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks." -John Chrysostom

 

[tim-from-pa]

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

No, I was not either. I was talking about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Or I guess marriage, annulment and remarriage. Same animal, different names.

 

[Veritas]

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.

I don't want to derail the thread from birth control... but I simply wanted to say that I agree with this. ...and I wanted to give an AMEN!

 

[darkwater]

No, I was not either. I was talking about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Or I guess marriage, annulment and remarriage. Same animal, different names.

Remarriage after a divorce is not possible, marriage, like baptism is permanent. An annulment (if it is valid) is a statement that a marriage did not occur. Of course people can lie to get annulments, but that consequence is on their soul.

 

[Devekut]

Handy,

Both food and sex are meant to be pleasurable. This is why we have taste buds and why sex feels good. However, these boundaries can be crossed. Remember, gluttony is a sin. ABC is a kind of sexual gluttony.


When I eat snacks like potatoe chips, there is still some nutritional value (although very little) and it still serves to appease my hunger. I am not doing anything, when I eat chips, to deliberately obstruct my body from recieving nutrition. I am simply eating food that is not fully equipped to provide my body with what it needs, but nor is any one food capable of this. In this sense, the two are not entierly comparable.

In regards to sex, it is not immoral to have sex for pleasure. It is, however, immoral to set up the act in such a way that conception is not possible. This is to turn the life giving capacity of sexuality into a switch that we can flick on and off.

Birth control reduces sex merely to pleasure, rather than giving pleasure its natural place among the multiple dimensions of human sexuality. Is it any surprise that, with the acceptence of ABC, there has been a great rise in hedonism in popular culture? That teenagers everywhere are having sex? That they do so freely with little fear of conceiving? Is it a suprise that our society now fails to connect sex with pro-creation? That the fetus is seen as a consequence of the pleasurable act, subordinated to the pleasurable dimension, and disposed of it was "not the intention" of having sex?

For the record,
I happen to think there is no difference between Natural Family Planning and ABC. Most Catholics will disagree with me because the Church currently supports NFP. The Orthodox Christians are against NFP as well.

 

[CatholicXian]

Tell you what: Although I don't ascribe to the magisterium, I will thoroughly read the Humanae Vitae as something written by a man with godly wisdom and see what it says.

Then I'll come back and argue some more!

OK, not really, but I'll come back and further discuss.

Wow... this is true discussion. I'm impressed (and will be further impressed if you read the entire encyclical). Thank you for being so open and honest.

I will say this, however, the Catholic Church's views on sex are based upon the idea that sex is more than just another way of expressing intimacy with one's spouse. Sex is, in a sense, sacred. Sacred, not because of something either of the spouses contribute themselves, but sacred because together sex has the power to generate new human life. What a gift from God to us! What a blessing that we should be allowed to co-operate with Him in creation--especially the creation of another human person!

 

[CatholicXian]

For the record,
I happen to think there is no difference between Natural Family Planning and ABC. Most Catholics will disagree with me because the Church currently supports NFP. The Orthodox Christians are against NFP as well.

The Catholic Church "supports" NFP ONLY in cases of GRAVE necessity. It's part of responsible parenthood (that "Humanae Vitae" speaks of). Is NFP abused? Yes, and this is when it too can become sinful. The real truth is that the Church supports "responsible parenthood" but the laity has forgotten/not been taught what responsible parenthood entails...

 

[Free]

The difference between NBC (like Natural Family Planning) is that it involves abstaining at some point so that a greater good may come out of it (like having kids when you have more money).

Paul has a different view: 1Co 7:5 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.

Gen. 38:8-10 states that Onan was killed for spilling his seed (withdrawal birth control method). His death was not punishment for not doing his job to keep the family going as that was not punishable by death (see Deut. 25:7-10 & Gen. 38:11-26).

Since you used Scripture to show that not keeping the family going was not punishable by death, perhaps you can also use Scripture to show the "spilling seed" was punishable by death.

Pope Paul VI also noted that contraception use would lead to a rise in abortion, which is of course the case. Many people now see abortion as a second line of defense if the first line fails.

I don't think that such an argument can be sustained from history. Abortion has always been around and likely more than birth control.

Remember, gluttony is a sin. ABC is a kind of sexual gluttony.

Not really. ABC would actually be the same as eating chips. There is still much benefit to the act of sex, as any married person knows, whether or not ABC is used.

It is, however, immoral to set up the act in such a way that conception is not possible.

Based on what? What biblical support can you give for such a position?

Birth control reduces sex merely to pleasure, rather than giving pleasure its natural place among the multiple dimensions of human sexuality.

You stated earlier: "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."

How does birth control reduce sex to merely pleasure when it is multidimensional? And what of the those couples who have sex and no love and don't use birth control? Is that a sin as well?


In the end, there is absolutely no biblical basis for being against birth control. And if one condemns ABC they must also condemn NBC, to remain consistent in their position.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Tell you what: Although I don't ascribe to the magisterium, I will thoroughly read the Humanae Vitae as something written by a man with godly wisdom and see what it says.

Then I'll come back and argue some more!

OK, not really, but I'll come back and further discuss.

Thats the spirit: Good for you! I respect that a lot.

 

[darkwater]

eprive 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.

How is that different from what I said. Using NFP involves abstaining for a short time...

Since you used Scripture to show that not keeping the family going was not punishable by death, perhaps you can also use Scripture to show the "spilling seed" was punishable by death.

What other crime was Onan guilty of then? The punishment was death.

I don't think that such an argument can be sustained from history. Abortion has always been around and likely more than birth control.

Both have been around for ages and ages. Pope Paul VI simply points out that by making immorality easier a general lessening of morality will follow. These include sexual experimentation by the young, the objectification of women, and use of abortion as birth control.

In the end, there is absolutely no biblical basis for being against birth control. And if one condemns ABC they must also condemn NBC, to remain consistent in their position.

Read Humanae Vitae, I count 16 references directly from the Bible. I'm sure that some of the Encyclicals, Council Documents, and the Summa also quote the Bible in them as well.

"Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

 

[Devekut]

The Catholic Christian understanding of sexuality is such that only heterosexual intercourse, in the context of marriage, and freely open to the possibility of life is consistent with the natural purposes of sex as designed by the Creator.

I think other Christians who think birth control is permissible will have a difficult time explaining their traditional position on homosexual relations, if they wish to go beyond merely saying "scripture says so".

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual relations are inherently disordered, and this is precisely because it is sexual activity that is, by nature, closed to the possiblity of conception. God created two genders, in order that their pleasurable and loving union would be fruitful and they would, in this sense, become "co-creators" with God, participating in the populating of earth.

If it is the position of other Christians that openness to conception is not a neccessary condition for morally permissible sex, then on what basis is homosexual acitivty immoral? Does birth control not render the gender "neuter" insofar as it no longer brings to the act the unqiue contribution of the gender?

Do we not prohibit homosexual activity because the act is inherently contrary to the purpose of sex? How then is ABC different ?

How can we hold the infertile nature of homosexual relations againt the act, if Christians are free to frustrate conception whenever they desire?

 

[Vic C.]

I think other Christians who think birth control is permissible will have a difficult time explaining their traditional position on homosexual relations, if they wish to go beyond merely saying "scripture says so".

I don't understand why you are relating a married couple using contraception with homosexuality. That doesn't make sense to me. Why can't I have a valid reason to use contraception and still be against the homosexual movement?

I can validate the use of contraception and never bring up homosexuality or Scripture.

I believe you're not seeing the whole picture because you are blocked by your Church's position. Don't take this personally, but sometimes you have to step out of the collective and reason things out for your selves.

I will use Scripture now though. :-D

1 Cor 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul doesn't mention anything about marrying to procreate; he is speaking out about satisfying lustful desires. Thsi suggests it's possible to have one (intimate relations) without the other (conception).

 

[Devekut]

Vic,

What you're saying is that the possibility of conception is not a neccessary condition for permissible sexual activity. More so, that human beings are free to arrange their sexual activity in a way that deliberately disregards or excludes conception.

From the position of natural law and moral philosophy, if we begin at the above, it is indeed very difficult to say on what basis homosexuality is disordered.

 

[CatholicXian]

1 Cor 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul doesn't mention anything about marrying to procreate; he is speaking out about satisfying lustful desires. Thsi suggests it's possible to have one (intimate relations) without the other (conception).

I have a huge problem with this interpretation. Are you suggesting marriage is about lust? OR, even that it's okay to base a marriage on satisfying lustful desires? I don't think this is the point of Paul's words here (nor do I think lust plays any part of the Christian message...)

FYI...It's always possible to have sexual relations without conception--it's natural (i.e., there are times when a women is naturally fertile and will not conceive). However, the problem with contraception is that it is UNnatural. It distorts the natural/tries to usurp the natural cycle of fertility.

 

[Free]

How is that different from what I said. Using NFP involves abstaining for a short time...

My point is that Paul is saying that a couple should abstain for the purposes of prayer, not to avoid pregnancy.

What other crime was Onan guilty of then? The punishment was death.

What does it matter what the punishment was? If you cannot provide a law which states that a man who spills his sperm is to be punished by death, then that verse does nothing to support your argument. He died because God found him wicked and killed him, not necessarily because he violated any particular law.

Both have been around for ages and ages. Pope Paul VI simply points out that by making immorality easier a general lessening of morality will follow. These include sexual experimentation by the young, the objectification of women, and use of abortion as birth control.

Yes, but you were making the argument that Pope Paul VI stated "contraception use would lead to a rise in abortion, which is of course the case". My point was that that has always been the case. I really don't think it is worse now than in biblical times. In other words, this also does nothing to support the argument against contraception.

Read Humanae Vitae, I count 16 references directly from the Bible.

No offense, but perhaps you need to read it.

1. Matt. 28:18-19 - "The Great Commission"--nothing even about sex there, much less birth control.
2. Matt. 7:21 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
3. 1 John 4:8 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
4. Eph. 3:15 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
5. Romans 3:8 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
6. Luke 2:34 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
7. Romans 8 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
8. Matt. 11:30 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
9. Matt. 7:14 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
10. Heb. 12:11 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
11. Titus 2:12 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
12. 1 Cor. 7:31 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
13. Romans 5:5 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
14. Eph 5. 25, 28-29, 32-33 - The only passage cited that mentions man and wife, but again, absolutely nothing about birth control.
15. 1 Cor 1. 10 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.
16. John 3:17 - Again, absolutely nothing about sex or birth control.

As I stated, there is no biblical basis for being against birth control.

 

[Free]

From the position of natural law and moral philosophy, if we begin at the above, it is indeed very difficult to say on what basis homosexuality is disordered.

I am not going to answer for Vic but I will give an answer. If we take such an argument to its logical conclusion, then people who are past their prime and those who, for a variety of reasons, cannot conceive, we can argue that such relations are sin.

If the whole basis of homosexuality being a sin is that there is no chance for procreation, then the Bible's stance on homosexuality is week indeed. That would be in fact the weakest argument against homosexuality. I will leave it at that since this is about birth control.

However, the problem with contraception is that it is UNnatural. It distorts the natural/tries to usurp the natural cycle of fertility.

And what is the argument? In the whole of this thread so far there has been absolutely no reason given as to why this ought to be considered a sin. In order for your argument to hold, you must first provide biblical evidence that interrupting the natural cycle of fertility is a sin.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....If we take such an argument to its logical conclusion, then people who are past their prime and those who, for a variety of reasons, cannot conceive, we can argue that such relations are sin. ....

But those are natural circumstances, whereas artificial contracedption is UNnatural. It is the blocking of the life giving power of God

 

[CatholicXian]

However, the problem with contraception is that it is UNnatural. It distorts the natural/tries to usurp the natural cycle of fertility.

And what is the argument? In the whole of this thread so far there has been absolutely no reason given as to why this ought to be considered a sin. In order for your argument to hold, you must first provide biblical evidence that interrupting the natural cycle of fertility is a sin.

I was providing a rational argument, not a biblical one... I was responding to Vic's suggestion that "sometimes you have to step out of the collective and reason things out for your[selves]." I realize she wasn't asking for a purely rational argument, but it seemed like a good place to make one. The natural function of sex is to make babies, whether babies are always conceived under natural circumstances is not something we can control (i.e., at times when a woman is naturally infertile). Contraception, in any form, attempts to remove the possibility of conception (hence the name, contra-conception) through unnatural means--barriers, chemicals, incomplete sexual relations, etc. It disrupts the relation itself.


Whether or not you want to interpret the passage about Onan as specifically condemning contraception is really a moot point. Onan did something displeasing to God--so displeasing that it warranted death. The biblical punishment for refusing to give your brother's widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deuteronomy 25:5-10... or around there, I think). So there's something else in that biblical passage that warns us why God struck Onan, and the only other thing we have to go on is the fact that Onan refused to complete the sexual encounter by pulling out and spilling his seed on the ground.

One could also argue that God's condemnation of homosexual actions stems from the fact that in such encounters seed is wasted, as Onan wasted his seed... Homosexual exchange of semen cannot bear fruit, and neither can seed spilled on the ground. Homosexual actions are like spilling seed on the ground-- no children (/blessings) can come of it--it's sterile sex, which is exactly what contraception makes sex--sterile--through unnatural means.

God knew exactly what He was doing when He designed a woman's body, and when He designed her fertility cycles. There's nothing wrong with a woman's natural fertility cycle-- we don't need to try and "fix" something that's not broken!