Posted on 12/12/2013 4:07:04 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
The Church strongly opposes contraception, in keeping with the historical position of Christianity. Openness to procreating life is one of the defining characteristics of marriage, which is primarily what makes homosexual "marriage" impossible. The Church also upholds the life-long commitment that is marriage. Contrast the Church's beautiful teachings on all of this against the positions of Protestantism -- those of Anglicanism, in particular.
Anglicans once agreed with the Church on these subjects, up until the 1930 Lambeth Conference that approved contraception in some cases (which, of course, had a snowball effect). Here's the 15th resolution from the Conference:
"Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."There were still some restrictions, obviously, but since then, all practical barriers to contraception have fallen. That decision of that Conference is interesting, especially considering that it stated that "the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children" in its 13th resolution and that "the duty of parenthood [is] the glory of married life" in its 14th resolution.
The Episcopal "Church" of the USA (the official American branch of Anglicanism) also now blesses homosexual relationships. (See their liturgy for it here.) The "Church" of England recently announced that it will follow the same route.
But what must be kept in mind is that, in 1991, the ECUSA officially barred homosexual couples from having sexual relations:
"..the 70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous 'union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind' 'intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord' as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer" [link]And the 1930 Lambeth Conference addressed the subject, as well:
"[The Conference] reaffirms 'as our Lord's principle and standard of marriage a life-long and indissoluble union, for better or worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard.'" [from Resolution 11]So, if openness to life is not required in marriage (which the acceptance of contraception would seem to indicate), then why are same-sex couples in the ECUSA mandated to practice sexual abstinence? And if it is required, then why are contraception and homosexual relationships now endorsed?
And I must say that I find it laughable (but not at all surprising) that Anglicanism, which was founded by a king that just wanted a few divorces, is so inconsistent on the subject of divorce, too. Its leaders have taught that marriage is to be a "life-long union" (Resolution 114 of the 1958 LC) and "no husband or wife has the right to contemplate even legal separation until every opportunity of reconciliation and forgiveness has been exhausted" (Resolution 116 of the 1958 LC), yet divorce and "remarriage" are now totally accepted.
The Anglican positions on marriage and sexuality are nonsensical. Would not God's true Church be more consistent? If Anglicans really want to "secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology" (Resolution 12 of the 1930 LC), then they should tell them to become Catholic.
----------
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
----------
Judas betrays Christ with a kiss.
Once the Spirit has left the building, there is nothing left to do but call the realtors.
My thoughts exactly.
I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.
The declaration at Lambeth is contentless. They never answered the question: WHAT moral considerations could make continence immoral?
Ultimately, of course, married couples were being told: Do the right thing, unless you find it difficult or unpleasant.
Tolkien best summarized Anglicanism: “a pathetic and shadowy medley of half-remembered traditions and mutilated beliefs.”
Related threads:
Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin assigns blame to himself and church for same-sex marriage in R.I.
Q-poll: Catholic voters are leading the USA to same-sex marriage
>> I agree. Liberal Anglicans would be better off being Catholic.
What in your mind justifies Catholicism being a better spiritual venue for pro-homosexual Anglicans?
“So, if openness to life is not required in marriage (which the acceptance of contraception would seem to indicate), then why are same-sex couples in the ECUSA mandated to practice sexual abstinence? And if it is required, then why are contraception and homosexual relationships now endorsed?”
Excellent point. But sin is incompatible with true logic and reasoning.
If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.
I sincerely HOPE nobody decides to join the Catholic Church solely on the basis of this issue.
For starters, the CAtholics aren't pro-homosexual.
If Roman Catholicism is being presented as "God's true church" and superior to any other denomination of Christianity based on this one area, then shouldn't this church actually demonstrate that moral superiority better? Without even dwelling on the abysmal child sexual abuses of the past BY clergy and the cover-ups, stonewalling and perjury by the hierarchy, explain how the "contraception" rules are intrinsically different when the "rhythm method" and "natural family planning" are recommended for married couples to avoid conception? The result is basically the same whether a couple uses NFP or a condom. All the Catholic Church is doing is piously asserting "their" way is the only way God's church should act in the area of what a husband and wife do in the planning of their families between themselves and God. It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me.You are a "member" of the "True Church", yes?
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but here would be a few answers to boatbums question:
First, placing a physical (or drug) barrier rather than a self-control barrier smacks of the philosophy that we, instead of God, are the arbiters of our own fates, of who gets born and who dies. In fact, it says "we INSIST that we are in control of life and death."
Second, use of the physical barrier more likely leads to turning a blind eye to one's children's use of same when they become of a sexually active age.
Third, rejecting a well-intentioned church teaching in one area could lead to a life of looking for exceptions in other (all?) areas of church teaching. The straight-forward purpose of the contraception mandate is to honor God as being sovereign in all affairs.
I agree, well said Padre.
This subject always seems WEIRD to me. Does anyone actually think God is knitting His brow over contraception questions, when we cannot even get “THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD” correct? Really. Here we are, called to be ambassadors for Christ, preaching the reconciliation God desires for man, through the finished work of His Son, and yet, contraception is the highest note we can reach for Him.
If you have a chance to honor God in one area, then why wouldn’t you?
However, the issue of man determining he is sovereign over life and death is a huge issue, so “condoms” are a slippery slope to euthanasia....murder to promote social convenience.
Actually that’s very easy to understand. Catholics must obfuscate to the peripherals of Catholic teaching that cannot be substantiated in scripture because they cannot stand on scripture alone. Satan always attempts to deflect from what scripture says. As Jesus pointed out, Satan is always trumped by what scripture actually says. It’s why Jesus so often said “it is written”. Catholics must get off of “it is written” or they will be thwarted like Satan was.
THAT makes sense. I’ve not seen so many “experts “ on contraception than here. Ask about a condom and the reply is swift and without doubt. Ask about the gospel of your salvation, and well..
"Well intentioned church teaching" ≠ Scripture. There's no point in following church teachings if they do not line up with the Word of God. It does not impress God or earn brownie points with Him.
Considering the rate of contraceptive failure, I hardly think that God is not sovereign in conception. If God so chooses that a certain person exist, that person will despite the efforts of parents to prevent pregnancy. And there's no fool proof contraceptive.
There's danger in mandating what God is silent on in Scripture. It smacks of legalism and is how cults are born.
We all make decisions based on the revelation that we do have, Metmom. To say that nothing can counteract or stump the power of God is a true saying. That fact, however, has not prevented any number of creatures from nonetheless trying to do so. Did Satan’s rebellion triumph over God? No it has not as will be seen in the will have not.
So, because Satan cannot counteract God’s purpose and power, does that mean Satan hasn’t really done bad? No. He has done evil, and that sin will be punished eventually in the lake of fire.
With us is there anyone God has decreed to be born who will remain unborn? Never. God’s sovereignty overcomes all.
Is the intention to change the status of those who are to exist to the status of those who will not exist a sinful thought? I think it is. I think it is an assumption of sovereignty in the same way that thought of murder is an assumption of sovereignty. (BTW, every pro-life argument supports this viewpoint. The pre-born are living creations of God.)
What about the pre-conceived? Are they real?
Well, only if there is evidence that the “yet to be conceived” have ever been predicted and the prediction come true. The Messiah Jesus, John the Baptist, and Cyrus come quickly to mind.
Therefore, the intention of the heart to do away with the yet to be conceived is a sin of the heart akin to the taking of a life.
Far better to err on the side of life.
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.