Posted on 06/10/2018 6:42:31 PM PDT by marshmallow
“Celibate” “priests” discussing sex. hmmmmmm
For instance, Birth control pills can help irregular periods, PCOS, endometriosis, acne, menstrual cramps, and low estrogen conditions. But if there's no intercourse, it's not an act of contraception.
(NFP is not a sexual act at all, and therefore not an act of contraception.)
Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention: “The Evangelical Unease Over Contraception”
Excerpt:
Is the evangelical concern about birth control part of a larger worldview? Of course it is. As a matter of fact, evangelicals did not come to the conversation about birth control until a host of other moral issues forced the question. Lupfer states that evangelical leaders “will tell you that the Protestant embrace of birth control lacked adequate theological reflection.” We will tell you that because it is true — demonstrably true. In the words of historian Kathleen Tobin, “all major denominations in the Judeo-Christian world condemned contraception” until the 20th century. As she points out, it was the liberal and mainline Protestant groups driving the acceptance of birth control, with conservative Protestants solidly against it at least until World War II. As for theology — it hardly played a part in the debates among liberal Protestants.
For evangelicals, everything changed with the advent of The Pill.
You wrote: "You are contradicting yourself...Because not all sex IS procreation.
You perhaps read what I wrote too hastily. I said that all honest sex is procreational, "IN THE SENSE THAT...."
The phrase "IN THE SENSE THAT" explains that even if sex does not cause a pregnancy each and every time (!!), even when it is naturally infertile, it still supports the marital bond and, thus, the happiness and satisfaction of procreative couple.
Please note key words: "naturally," "couple-bond," "marital fidelity."
"Couple-bond" "marital fidelity," "marital stability" and "procreation" are goods of the husband and wife's sexual union.
Even when fertility is "naturally" absent, the other goods still exist and are 100% legitimate to the married couple, in that they support the marriage.
The whole thing is procreative, as long as you aren't actually acting to sabotage it (via directly acting AGAINST the life-giving, pleasure-giving, or bond-building nature of marital act.)
Cooperating with the design of normal, natural sexuality is good.
Picking apart and sabotaging the design --- treating the design as if it were a disease, to be "treated" by drugs, devices, and surgery--- hormonally suppressed, poisoned, blocked, or cut off --- is bad.
Surely you can see that cooperating with the periodicity of fertility honors the God-built design, and suppressing the design, doesn't.
I think the problem here, is that some people really don't consider that natural, normal sex is designed by God and that design is both intelligent and providential.
The periodic, coming-and-going nature of fertility in the healthy, normal wife is a feature, not a glitch.
Metmom,I know you directed that question to ZC (even though you said "y'all") and he can speak for himself.
Speaking for "myself" and for all the Christians I can think of, the answer is, "No. Gimme a break. Sex was not the first sin."
Yikes.
I knew supposed celibate nuns who were marriage counselors. I always thought that was a bit strange too. 😁
True. No argument here.
"...and abstaining from intercourse is not the only moral choice to doing so."
If speaking of veterinary medicine or animal husbandry, you are right. There is nothing particularly sacred about animal breeding, and their reproduction can be controlled by "spaying" or "fixing" or snipping their whatevers.
Why? It's because animals are instinctive and act appropriately to their animal nature: they can't control their breeding behavior or conceptualize any transcendent significance or sacred value for the how's, why's or with-whoms of how they mate.
If speaking of humans, you've got a fundamentally different situation, since humans can both control their behavior AND conceptualize transcendent values.
The reason why human sex requires special, even sacred handling, is that we believe it has a sacred purpose: the expression of sacred marital love and the procreation of beings which personally bear the image and likeness of God.)
Unless you get the "sacred" part, I seriously think it's pretty hard to get the "ethics" part.
Hence acting intentionally against love or directly disabling the procreative potential of the act, is morally problematic for human beings.
As a general rule in ANY kind of medical ethics (not just sexual ethics) it is wrong to act to directly disable a human organ or system, when this disabling is your intent.
For instance: Judicial maiming is unethical. Maiming by cultural choice (e.g. female genital mutilation) is unethical. Transgender body modification is unethical.
BTW, and tellingly, Muslims would disagree with that; this is because Islam teaches no regard for inherent or intrinsic human dignity, has no particular respect for Natural Law, and has no Scripture that tells them they are created in the image and likeness of God.}
But back to our theme of ethics: removing someone's eyes or limbs as sheer preference-based elective surgery is unethical. (I am speaking of "treating" people for Body Dysmorphic Disorder (LINK) --- where an emotionally disturbed person wants to cut off a healthy limb or remove a healthy eye or other organ, not for the therapeutic purpose of removing a diseased body part, but simply for elective choice). That is unethical.
Unethical for humans, but not for animals.
The reason it's unethical for humans, but not for animals, is because animals' bodies are of a lower order than ours. They can be owned, disposed of, used, treated instrumentally.
Human bodies are not to be used in exactly the same way, because we are not absolute owners even of ourselves. We are image-bearers of God.
Hence human dignity requires that we not treat our bodies as pure objects, but as persons whose design is both significant and providential.
And that includes sexual design.
“Hence acting intentionally against love or directly disabling the procreative potential of the act, is morally problematic for human beings.”
Outiside of marriage I would agree, as “sexual ‘love’ “ is the ONLY purpose likely being served. Within a loyal marriage union I personal do not believe the couple is commiting any sin. They do not have to leave pro-creation to mere chance, anymore than the creative acts of G-d are just accidents of His creation with no higher intelligence behind them.
What makes you think people who may use some form of contraceptive AREN'T still trusting God? I know a few women who got pregnant WHILE taking the pill. My own father sired two more sons after his vasectomy. We can't thwart the will of God. Look at Sarah and Moses - they got pregnant when they were senior citizens! John the Baptist's parents as well.
Question: Does God expect us to provide for our children, to be able to feed and clothe them and ensure they have a roof over their heads and the security of loving parents? It's called RESPONSIBILITY.
Please understand, I am not in any way condoning sex outside of marriage nor do I think abortifacient contraceptives (IUD, BC pill, hormone implants, etc.) are acceptable. But using some kind of barrier method - though NOT 100% effective - isn't all that different than Natural Family Planning (NFP) that Catholicism doesn't have a problem with. Like I said, giving guidance and education WRT Biblical principles IS the role churches should play in families' lives. To state ALL CONTRACEPTION IS ALWAYS EVIL is overkill - pardon the pun.
So if a woman almost dies during her last childbirth, and is advised by her doctor not to ever get pregnant again - goes ahead and uses birth control, she’s “evil”?
If a woman well into her mid forties, starting menopause, but still likely fertile, uses birth control, she’s “evil”?
The old queens running the RC church should stick to what they’re good at: advocating for open borders and Islamic invasion, and hiding the rape of boys. Matters of heterosexual sex within marriage they should just take a pass on.
Every sperm is still sacred?
So children really are a punishment for God? The Fall ended recreational sex, apparently, so impregnation’s heightened likelihood was part of the punishment.
I give up. What is the reason?
Considering the failure rate of birth control, if God wants you to have a baby, you're going to have it.
Birth control is not going to stop His plan.
I think the Catholics are right, along with the old order Mennonites, Amish, quiver-full folks, and other sorts of independent Christians who reject birth control within marriage. I think it can lead to a lot of other things that liberals want—female clergy, ‘gay marriage’, acceptance of abortion. Try finding one person who accepts those things but also thinks acceptance of birth control within marriage is wrong. I’ve never come across one, anyhow.
Freegards
Acceptance of birth control is not the CAUSE of moral breakdown and abortion.
The root cause of evil is the desire for sin in the heart.
If you want to consider contraception to be sin, then it too is the result of moral failure in the heart first.
ALL sin is conceived in the heart before it is borne in the flesh.
Contraception would then be just as much a symptom of moral breakdown as abortion is.
Y'all are blaming the wrong thing.
It's like blaming the existence of alcohol for alcoholism. Or guns for school shootings.
1 Corinthians 5:7 does NOT state that. You are reading way more into that verse than it says.
To ascribe the acceptance of female clergy, ‘gay marriage’, and abortion to a married couple’s decision not to have ten kids is laughable.
Nobody knows if Paul had ever been married or not. Scripture doesn't tell us.
Catholics sure make a lot of assumptions about things to support their theology.
And so what if they were celibate? Does that make them more spiritual than a married person who is not?
Cause you all sure seem to treat it as if it's a virtue of some kind, just like sex is bad or something.
Indeed. Contraception is a manifestation of sin. It’s another way of throwing God out of the Garden and to remake Creation in our own way. On our own terms.
But as Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention points out, different manifestations of sin are accentuated at various points in history. For example: the 20th and 21st Centuries following the invention of The Pill.
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.