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.
Condoms have a notoriously high failure rate. They are the least reliable form of birth control.
They are a pretty poor choice for someone who really wants to avoid pregnancy.
How does that mean that the sex act is not potentially procreative?
Using a condom when a woman is fertile is more potentially procreative than abstaining from sex when she’s fertile.
If God is sovereign, then any sex during a woman’s fertile time is potentially procreative, and I’ve met plenty of people who have had surgery to ensure no more pregnancies, and they ended up with them anyway.
NOTHING is fool proof except not having sex.
ALERT! SYSTEM MELTDOWN... caused by mm’s insistence on logic and common sense... there is now underway a mass exit to the nearest mass. Nerves are being shattered and long abandoned brain cells are firing up. Must NOT allow that to occur. Quick, someone grab the wafers and juice. And a chant or two. Calm people. Remain CALM. We have this thing under control.
Again, you have it wrong. NFP is about avoiding artificial means of blocking pregnancy.
Nothing blocks that pregnancy or that union in NFP. Absolutely nothing.
A 59 year old woman in England gave natural birth. We don’t really know any upper limit with God, for Sarah was quite old and past menopause and said:
(From Young’s literal translation)
Genesis 18:11 And Sarah is hearkening at the opening of the tent, which is behind him; 12 and Abraham and Sarah [are] aged, entering into days — the way of women hath ceased to be to Sarah; 13 and Sarah laugheth in her heart, saying, `After I have waxed old I have had pleasure! — my lord also [is] old!’ 14 And Jehovah saith unto Abraham, `Why [is] this? Sarah hath laughed, saying, Is it true really — I bear — and I am aged? Is any thing too wonderful for Jehovah? at the appointed time I return unto thee, about the time of life, and Sarah hath a son.’
What is the purpose of a condom?
More male/female humor:
Q: What do you call an intelligent, good looking, sensitive man? A: A Rumour
Dear Lord, I pray for Wisdom to understand my man; Love to forgive him; And Patience for his moods. Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I’ll beat him to death. AMEN
Q: Why do little boys whine? A: They are practicing to be men.
Q: What does it mean when a man is in your bed gasping for breath and calling your name? A: You did not hold the pillow down long enough.
Q: How do you keep your husband from reading your e-mail? A: Rename the mail folder ‘Instruction Manual’
I’d post the bit from “Meaning of Life” with Graham Chapman as the very proper Victorian Anglican gent, but I strongly suspect it wouldn’t last very long.
I will pray that the Holy Spirit shows you the truth and bring you home to His Church.
Blocking pregnancy is blocking pregnancy, whether it's *natural* or not.
Scripture didn't indicate that Onan used any *artificial* contraceptives.
So the real issue then, is not the avoiding pregnancy, it's just doing it the *natural* way cause that's better, right?
Wrong. If advocating for sex without the procreative potential promotes homosexuality, then NFP promotes homosexuality because it tells married couple to have sex only when they know she can't get pregnant.
Same thing as avoiding sex when the woman is fertile.
Typical disrespect shown for men.
Just the kind of *humor* found on sitcoms that is contributing to the degradation of men in this country.
I sure hope I don’t see you complaining about the emasculation of men in this country, because *jokes* like that don’t help any.
I called that one over a year ago.
Notice how the rationalizations swill now start.
It’s a “generation vipers” focusing on the “rules”, “laws” and whether married couples can have sex without procreation. Inserting rules extrapolated from obscure interpretations in some carnal attempt to attain “holiness”.
Paul’s answer to the jailor was simple and didn’t include a lengthy diatribe on the need to purchase and follow a book of rules. Satan's attempt to keep us from that simple message of salvation and get us to dwell on laws, rules, and cup washing is pervasive with these people.
That’s exactly what I thought when I read it. The liberal indoctrination runs deep.
Projection will do that to someone.
Not everyone thinks like you.
Apart from theology, all you have to do is look at those who are for or against birth control within marriage.
Conservatives are split on it. Fair enough.
But every person/group who is for things like abortion, female clergy, and ‘gay marriage’ is also all for birth control within marriage. I bet nobody could find one person who digs these things but also thinks birth control within marriage shouldn’t be accepted as well. At least I’ve never come across it.
I mean, if there isn’t a connection there, why have there not been faith groups that officially accepted something like ‘gay marriage’ or female clergy before they accepted birth control within marriage?
Freegards, thanks for all the pings on FR
I continue to pray for you and that Jesus may come into your heart someday.
I found that opinion wanting long before RCIA was a gleam in my eye.
I feel the exact same way about all the protestants that choose "stupid for Jesus" instead of knowing him intimately through His Church and Sacraments.
He did long time ago.
Pray for yourself.
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.