Posted on 12/08/2006 4:44:04 PM PST by Salvation
Other Articles by Pete Vere, JCL Printer Friendly Version |
|
Open to Life: Asking Protestants to Ponder Mary |
Like many pro-life writers, I spend my fair share of time interacting with the evangelical Protestant community. I find them zealous when it comes to combating abortion. In fact, their zeal is what usually tips me off about Christmas's approach. The first candle is barely lit on the Advent wreath when our evangelical brethren begin publishing a barrage of articles, reflections and sermons on the theme, "What if Mary had aborted Jesus?"
The question, of course, is rhetorical. One could not imagine Mother Mary aborting Baby Jesus. Such an action would have changed the course of salvation history for the worse, in that salvation would have become impossible without Christ to bridge the gap between God and man.
Thus our evangelical brethren mean no disrespect toward the Blessed Mother. They are simply pointing out the obvious: Mary was in a position not unlike that of many young single mothers, yet in choosing life, her actions greatly benefited mankind. Hence one should acknowledge that there is always the opportunity for an opening to God's grace whenever a woman finds herself with child.
Although the above argument originates from evangelical Protestants, I can accept it as a Catholic. Yet the majority of Evangelicals who I know - including those within the pro-life movement - promote contraception as permissible to Christians. Dr. Tim LaHaye, for example, is a founder of the US Moral Majority and the co-author of the popular evangelical apocalyptic Left Behind series. He is also a well-known example of an Evangelical who promotes contraception among married couples while claiming to be a pro-life Christian.
Nevertheless, whenever I encounter Evangelicals within the pro-life movement, I try to correct their erroneous view of contraception. These are often the same Evangelicals whom I watch debate abortion with mainline Protestants. I have seen them pop the "Would Mary have aborted Jesus?" argument during these intra-Protestant debates. With Christmas approaching, I knew they would be sharing reflections on our pro-life internet forum that ask the same question.
This got me thinking as we debated the morality of contraception: "What would have happened if Mary had contracepted Jesus?" The answer was obvious: the same as what evangelical Protestants propose would have happened if Mary had aborted Jesus. There would have been no Christmas morning. And without Christmas there would have been no Easter, no crucifixion and resurrection, and no salvation history. [Editor's note: The point here is not to contend that a "barrier method" would have prevented Mary conceiving Christ, but that fundamentally, contraception says "no" to God.]
In light of the similar outcome, I thought the Evangelicals with whom I debate would see the folly of their pro-contraception position. With one exception, however, my question was met first with stunned silence and then with outrage from our evangelical brethren. How dare I suggest that contraception was forbidden to Christians. "Where does the Bible condemn contraception?"
I found this last question strange, given that during a simultaneous debate with their mainline Protestant counterparts, the same evangelicals were asking: "Where does the Bible promote abortion?" Of course this was after the mainliners had pointed out that nowhere in the King James translation does one find the word "abortion".
As an aside, this taught me a valuable lesson about Protestants. When they oppose a practice as ungodly, they ask "Where does the Bible teach this practice?" When they favor a similar practice, the question changes to, "Where does the Bible condemn this practice?" Thus the Evangelical can say, "the Bible does not condemn contraception" while the Anglican states, "the Bible makes no mention of abortion."
Some Things Really Are Abominable
To be fair to Evangelicals and to mainline Protestants, they are both wrong. Holy Scripture clearly and explicitly condemns these abominable practices against the culture of life. While you never read the words "contraception" and "abortion" in the Bible, the early Church fathers understood these practices to be sorcery and witchcraft, which are mentioned.
The noted Jesuit catechist Fr. John A. Hardon, in his essay "Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life," wrote:
In the Roman Empire of the first century of the Christian era, contraception was universally approved and practiced by the people.... In the language of the day, contraceptive practice was referred to as "using magic" and "using drugs." It was in this sense that the first century Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [Didiche] warns Christians in four successive precepts: "You shall not use magic." "You shall not use drugs." "You shall not procure abortion." "You shall not destroy an unborn child."
"The sequence of those prohibitions is significant," Father Hardon continues. "We know from the record of those times that women would first try some magical rites or use sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would take one or another of then known seventeen medically approved contraceptives. If a woman still became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, she and her male partner could always resort to infanticide, which was approved by Roman law."
"Christians were warned not to follow the example of their pagan contemporaries, who walked in darkness and the shadow of death," Father Hardon concludes. "Christians were absolutely forbidden to practice contraception, which leads to abortion, which leads to infanticide."
Not surprising, as Catholics prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of England, to quote one Anglican news source, "has joined one of Britain's royal medical colleges in calling for legal euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies...." This is the same Anglican Church that first accepted contraception as permissible to Christians. The rest of Protestantism soon followed. The Anglican Church then accepted abortion under certain extreme circumstances, and for the most part Protestantism has followed.
So where would we be if Mary had practiced contraception? As we prepare for Advent and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ - as we prepare to celebrate the Gift that came through Mary's openness to life - I ask my evangelical Protestant brethren to ponder this question.
Please do not let this deteriorate into a Catholic bashing thead.
Ping!
I'll be back. Going over to church for my Holy Hour.
Then stop posting Protestant-bashing threads.
First, God saw 'into the Heart of Mary', so He knew she would not consider contraception or abortion when the Angelic messenger came to her. During a past Christmas season discussion, I offered that Mary Chose Life and that she had the right to refuse the offering from the Angelic visitor, to refuse to be the Mother of Jesus, because God would never force Mary or any woman. I find it interesting to read in this essay: "Mary was in a position not unlike that of many young single mothers, yet in choosing life, her actions greatly benefited mankind." Blessed be the Mother of Our Lord and Savior for she chose LIFE that WE may have life more abundantly. Mary's example is the true meaning of choice. The NOW meaning is demonic in nature.
"So where would we be if Mary had practiced contraception?"
Why should She have practiced contraception? God did not force Her to accept the Baby. She freely accepted the greatest honor bestowed on mankind. The great mystery about God is that he has total respect for His own creatures. We recognize it as Free Will.
Which threads are they? It seems to me the sizable and active Catholic sector of the FR community spends most of it's time bashing cafeteria Catholics and only argue against Protestants when the Protestants come in and post argumentative comments. I don't really know what goes on on Protestant and other religion centered threads, but if there are Catholics that come in to them to post snide responses, they ought to cease and desist.
Not all Protestants will consider this bashing. Remember God's reaction to the man in the Old Testament who let his semen fall on the ground? Gen 38:10 "...,he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also." Even the sperm and the egg are important, let alone an EMBRYO. Who are we to say no to God, when He gives us a blessing? We MUST reconsider our policy on contraception, and stop picking and choosing what we will and will not accept as truth. I believe the Lord Jesus will rule with an iron rod, and that includes the death penalty. How can we teach abstinance to the kids in middle school when we allow contraceptives for adults? Sounds hypocritical to me. But I take almost everything literally, like the wrath of God and the wrath of the Lamb during the tribulation, and only one return of the Messiah, not two.
You should consider doing a study on the "kinsman redeemer" laws in the Old Testament (Deut. 25:5-6). Onan wasn't guilty for ejaculating outside of a woman, he was guilty of willfully trying to utterly disinherit his brother's family (IIRC the entire Tribe of Judah, as Onan had no children of his own) from Israel. Any other reading of the text is, IMO, a false exegesis.
"Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother. Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother." (Genesis 38:8-9)If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).
Not possible since Jesus was not conceived in the usual way.
Scripturally, Mary found out she was going to be a mother. No consent, just told. She WAS freely submissive to God, and I would reason that she was chosen from the beginning just as the elect are said to be.
In Genesis 38:10, Onan's sin was acting wickedly towards his brother and not fulfilling the "kinsman redeemer" law by not impregnating his sister-in-law. That was the sin. Had he not laid with his sister-in-law it would have been the same sin.
Nor a Protestant bashing thread.
Imagine . . .
Handsome young buck falls in love with lovely young princess . . . and vice versa . . .
They have a dramatic, intense and sweet courtship.
They get married and honeymoon on Kauai and Tahiti and in the mountains of New Zealand for 6 months.
They arrive home at their lakeside home on lake Pend Oreille.
It just so happens that they have a mother-in-law bedroom in their large lakeside home--which has a full bath and Jacuzzi and a kitchenette.
The first week goes splendidly. They have pleasant meals together and then the couple retires to their master suite for a bit of computing, TV and passionate love making.
The second week is mostly the same.
By the 12th week, hubby has started watching a bit of TV with mother-in-law while wife occasionally appears at the mother-in-law's bedroom and taps her foot a bit with folded arms and a scornful countenance and expression.
By the 8th month, hubby watches TV with mother-in-law 6 nights out of 7 if not more. The lovemaking has been reduced to 2-3 times a month and the wife is more than a little hurt and quite a lot furious.
But hubby is thrilled with the delightful mother-in-law. So sweet. So gracious. So pure. So nurturing. Who needs a wife. Mother-in-law makes few demands and nurtures and affirms hubby up one side and down the other endlessly. Such a deal.
Of course, he married the wife. So what.
Mother-in-law is twice the fun and few to none of the demands. The wife can go soak in her own Jacuzzi. Hubby enjoys spending endless hours in adoration of Mommy dearest.
The Chruch is the Bride of Christ.
GOD ALONE HAS SOLE CLAIM on ALL our adoration.
ANYTHING AND ANYONE that displaces ANY of His adoration to ANY degree
IS,
at best,
GROSSLY suspect
and most likely to have some level of idolatry involved.
It's as simple, as that.
Very, very good.
And what's the penalty in Dt 25? Is it death?
Nope: it's public humiliation. The Mosaic Law, which without exception instituted stricter penalties (if a penalty had even existed before) for an offense, here penalizes failure to obey the Levirate Law with mere public humiliation, yet you want us to believe that it was punished in Gen 38 with death?
By the way, that "false exegesis," as you call it, was also endorsed by a fellow you may have heard of by the name of Luther.
That's a nice example changing the subject, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
au contraire.
It has everything to do with the topic at hand.
imho, of course.
Odd 'twas thought otherwise.
Maybe you should consider actually reading the article?
Anyone who condemns homosexuality, yet supports contraception is a hypocrite because, like homosexuality, contraception separates procreation from sexuality.
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.