And, up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
100%
Now the bums and bears think it is OK. Odd. They know more than ALL of Christendom did.
Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley said, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”
Show me where I said it was ok please.
As usual, the basic question I actually asked gets side-stepped once again. Perhaps you are ignorant that there was no such thing as "artificial" contraception back in the 1930s? The "pill" didn't come about until the 60s. Up till then there were abortion (which we all condemn), condoms, withdrawal method, and, oh, yeah, that's right...the Catholic approved Rhythm Method. I already said I don't agree with ANY type of contraception that destroys human life (such as the IUD and the pill which prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall). Barrier methods don't do that JUST AS the rhythm method and NFP don't also. So the "seed" of man gets wasted even in those cases - but way back then they thought the sperm CONTAINED the tiny baby. Science has since proved it doesn't. Going by your church's guidelines, a man or boy who has a "wet dream" commits a mortal sin!
So are you going to answer the question of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in allowing a few forms of contraception - and, yes, the RM and NFP are forms of it - but calling barrier methods or withdrawal "mortal" sins?
A *sin* so allegedly destructive and damning to the soul that God never makes mention of it anywhere in Scripture other than one alleged verse concerning Onan?
If it was such a sin or big deal, then why didn’t God emphasize it far more in Scripture, like he does for other sins like murder, adultery, lying, cheating, slander, etc?
One verse that can have another legitimate interpretation of why God slew Onan and the Catholic church runs with it. It develops a doctrine and then uses one interpretation of this verse to support their doctrine.
FWIW, NFP is contraception, no different than what Onan did. It’s for the purpose of sexual activity without the risk of getting pregnant, the very thing that Catholics condemn Onan for.
Catholics who use NFP are no different.
The hypocrisy of the Catholic(s) position abounds.