Posted on 03/07/2014 3:33:17 PM PST by marshmallow
Questions about the morality of birth control increasingly appear in columns and blogs by SBC ethicists and ministers.
On the surface, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists might seem unlikely bedfellows in opposing mandated coverage of contraceptives under Obamacare, but observers say it points to ongoing reconsideration of the morality of birth control among the Southern Baptist Convention’s leading thinkers.
“Evangelical leaders are tripping over themselves in the rush to stand with Roman Catholic bishops against this perceived governmental overreach,” Jacob Lupfer, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgetown University, said in a Religion News Service commentary in December. “At the same time, a growing number of white evangelical leaders are attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control itself.”
Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., responded that on that point, Lupfer “understates his own case.”
“A good many evangelicals hope to do far more than sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control,” Mohler replied. “Our concern is to raise an alarm about the entire edifice of modern sexual morality and to acknowledge that millions of evangelicals have unwittingly aided and abetted that moral revolution by an unreflective and unfaithful embrace of the contraceptive revolution.”
Shift in the 1980s
In a 2012 column for the Christian Post, Mohler said most evangelical Protestants welcomed the development of artificial birth control as a medical advance just as they celebrated the discovery of penicillin. A shift occurred in the 1980s, with the rise of the Religious Right and opposition to abortion on demand.
Affirming life as sacred at the moment of conception caused many to view intrauterine devices not as contraceptives but abortifacients, he said, and that conviction has extended to the use of oral contraceptives.
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
"Sacrament" means "oath"; the original sacramentum was the induction oath into the Roman army. Do you see any evidence of oath-taking in the Bible (try Hebrews).
Where does Jesus list them?
I would suggest that Jesus instituted every one of them in the Gospels, except for confirmation and extreme unction.
Where does Jesus tell us that He distributes parcels of grace only through them?
Nowhere, of course, because that isn't Catholic teaching.
My wife and I have had conversations on this - if a woman came to us and said she wanted to abort, we agreed we would take her in and provide for her until birth and adopt the child if she still didn't want her baby.
Puts me in mind of the ancient wisdom of being and manifestation. Being is conception or the soul and manifestation is birth or the body. Margaret Sanger would probably disagree.
Then why do Catholics say grace is received through the sacraments?
And all the while, while condemning all other kinds of contraception, the Catholic church hypocritically endorses "Natural Family Planning".
Contraception is contraception. If *sterile sex* is what's wrong, it condemns NFP as well and the Catholic church is wrong for giving NFP its stamp of approval.
Thanks for sharing both your experiences and observation.
IMHO it will take churches doing the following:
1. Clearly preach the Gospel
2. Stop meeting the lowest common denominator, instead pull people up.
Am I understanding you correctly, that if a couple, for reasonably serious reasons, wants to postpone or avoid pregnancy, the method that they use makes no difference morally, as long as they aren't killing their offspring?
My wife and I have had conversations on this.
Puts me in mind of the ancient wisdom of being and manifestation
Endorsing "natural family planning", justified only because it is pleasurable and used to avoid conception - though a few may use it to ensure conception - would also be a step on that slippery slope. Isn't NFP also a "sterile sex" for that matter? But because it is a method endorsed by your church hierarchy, Catholics can rationalize it as okay and everyone else is wrong.
From that aspect, --- conscious cooperation with the Designer and the design --- NFP is not CONTRA-ception: CONTRA the set-up and plan of the body. It is "non"-conception because God gives us this option as part of the evident arrangement of our bodies.
It makes all the difference in the world whether you're accepting and cooperating with God's design, or rebelling against it and thwarting it.
If you focus on the attitude toward the Creator, NFP is "not like" contraception, not even "analogous" to contraception. It is the opposite of contraception: harmony with God's purposes and design, rather than obstructing or impairing our God-given capacities.
At those times when married couples must, for good reason, delay or limit their childbearing, it is acceptable to do this in a way that works WITH God's design, and not AGAINST it.
There's certainly evidence suggesting that this helps strengthen the bond between husband and wife. In the United States, contraceptors have a lifelong divorce rate of approx. 40-50% --- NFP'ers have a lifelong divorce rate of 0.2% - 2.0%.
That is not, of course, mathematical proof, but rather a reasonable inference that contraception (which is opting against natural sex) is associated with weakening the marriage bond.
So sex just for the pleasure even between husband and wife, is the slippery slope towards immorality?
The Catholic church as a whole has some of the most twisted views on sex imaginable.
That's rationalization.
The legitimate, moral purpose of drugs, devices and surgery is to restore, repair, or strengthen normal physiological function: the natural design. In other words, ethical medical practice is to cure diseases, heal wounds and injuries, strengthen failing organs and systems, taking the healthy normal design as the pattern and goal.
Some people are so alienated from their natural bodies that they seek to fundamentally alter or impair them. There are weird body dysphorias where people with healthy eyes want to have them removed, people with healthy limbs want to be amputated, people with a male physiology want to be castrated and treated with hormones to achieve a pseud-female body-form, etc.
I think you would agree that it would be unethical for a doctor to castrate or maim a person with the non-therapeutic removal of a healthy eye, a healthy leg, a healthy penis and testicles. This is because the ethical purpose of the medical arts is to work FOR, not AGAINST, the purposes for which that organ was created.
All this does not necessarily apply to veterinary medicine, because animals can be re-engineered on many levels to suit human purposes. Animals can be bred, can be hybridized, can be sterilized, can be induced to develop in ways that they would not develop in the wild. But none of this applies to humans, because we, unlike animals, were not made as objects for the use of another species, but rather, we are persons made in the image and likeness of God.
That recognition of the imago Dei is the basis or morally good health care for humans.
This is why directly intended contraception and sterilization are quite different from the ethical practice of medicine. Here the intent is to partially or totally, temporarily or permanently, deprive a person of natural bodily integrity and function.
Interestingly, the whole homosexual/tranny ideology is based on the same premises as the contraceptive ideology:
Those who accept these deviations --- contraception, homosexuality, transsexualism --- have this in common: they reject the God-given design of sexuality; they reject the idea that the sexuality God gave us is sacred; they assert an autonomous right to deconstruct natural sex and gender.
And they impose the re-definition of words so that fully functioning heterosexual sex is redefined as oppression; fertility is redefined as a glitch, not a feature; pregnancy is dealt with as an illness (remember when Clinton's Surgeon-General, Joycelyn Elders, called pregnancy "America's most serious sexually-transmitted disease"?) and the chemical/surgical shutdown of female physiological function is redefined as "women's health."
It's all around us, metmom: the rejection of natural sex, complete n every detail, as if it were God's worst mistake. May God have mercy on us all.
#72.
It's been "all around us" since Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Satan will always, and has always, sought to pervert what God has created as good. Perverted sex is nothing new to this generation nor did the "sexual revolution" bring about something unheard of in the annals of history. Look at Abraham and Lot and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah - San Fransisco may be close to the state they were in but it's probably not yet half as bad as they were. You'll get no argument from me about society's fall into gross sexual immorality, but, I think it would be naive to imagine it has only come about because of contraception in the last half century. Men and women continue to engage in illicit sex regardless of advances in contraception. It's not the availability of MORE methods that encourages sin. Abortions haven't ceased because more methods are out there.
I have already stated that I don't condone sex outside of a male/female marriage nor do I accept ANY methods of birth control that cause the death of the new human life. Where I will disagree with you is in the area of what a husband and wife decide for themselves what is best in the planning of their family. Couples just starting out may not be in a position to afford children and must wait until they are more financially secure in order to best provide for the needs of their children. Outside of the basic guidelines we have already stated (no harm to new human life), it's not any of my business, nor yours, nor the "church's" to dictate to that couple what is permissible for them in the privacy of their own marriage bed.
If you want to get into the subject of God's will and provision, I couldn't agree more than all life is in His hands and He is able to work all things for our good when we love Him and are called according to His purpose/plan. But, knowing this doesn't prevent me from getting a flu shot each year. It doesn't keep me from getting antibiotics when I have an illness. There are certain areas where God expects us to act responsibly and others where we have no control and we must trust in Him. If a couple, in trying to space their children or wait until they are financially ready for a baby, uses a method that helps them in this responsible decision, then who am I OR you to scold them or decide for them they cannot? Condoms and other barriers are not 100% effective nor is ANY method for that matter, short of hysterectomy, so if this couple accepts an unexpected pregnancy that may result, then they are not doing anything wrong. Had they used NFP, instead, the result is the same. Why is one method called "sinful" while the other is totally acceptable? Either way, the couple IS involved in the decision they make.
I think it is disingenuous to try to tie ALL methods of contraception (which WOULD include NFP, if we're being honest) to the problems we have today with homosexuality, abortion, divorce and sexual immorality. These sins have ALWAYS been with us and are not new problems. Just as it is up to each believer to live his/her life in accordance with God's will and plan in obedience to His moral laws, so also must we, who may provide guidance to young people, teach them how we go about knowing God's perfect will. It begins, of course, with impressing upon them their priceless worth to their Creator and His great love for each of us. It continues with learning to appreciate the powerfully marvelous gift He gives a husband and wife in the act of procreation and to never take physical advantage of each other but to honor and respect each other, preferring the other to oneself. When that relationship between a husband and wife and between themselves and God is right, they will know what is morally best for them and they will learn to trust God for ALL things.
NFP is contraception.
The objection I responded to was about what had been referred to as *sterile sex* being the cause of immorality, and that contraception is to blame.
There is NOTHING wrong with sex merely for the sake of pleasure between a married man and woman, contrary to what some other Catholic posters on FR have stated before. The marriage bed is undefiled. Hebrews 13:4
If the sin is in the act of contraception, the prevention of conception, then the method used is irrelevant whether it’s condoms or the rhythm method or NFP.
And contraception is contraception, “natural” or not.
bb is correct in her post. Sexual sin has existed for long before contraception. The moral decline in our country is not because of contraception and easy sex. It’s due to the depraved condition of human nature which loves sin more than it loves God.
We sin because we’re sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. ANY sin that someone commits began in the heart long before it was borne in the actions. What we are seeing in our society is not the end result of contraception, it is the end result of man’s rebellion against God, which manifests in sin, that is different for each of us.
I'm venturing to make this discussion more "manageable" by first listing our areas of agreement. (Just skim this quickly. That way we shouldn't have to reiterate these points from here on in. That should make our future dialogue more focused.
(Or you could just skip the framed text.)
OK?
1. We agree that sexual immorality and sexual perversion -- Satan's tricks--- were not invented by the "Sexual Revolution" of the 20th century, but have been with us since Genesis. 2. We agree that we don't condone sex outside of a male/female marriage nor do we accept ANY methods of birth control that cause the death of the new human life.
3.
Where I will disagree with you is in the area ofWe agree on a husband and wife deciding for for themselves what is best in the planning of their family. Couples just starting out may not be in a position to afford children and must wait until they are more financially secure in order to best provide for the needs of their children.[You had put that as a point of disagreement, but as I will explain, it's actually a point of agreement.)
4. We agree that all life is in God's hands and He is able to work all things for our good when we love Him and are called according to His purpose/plan.
5. We agree that knowing this doesn't prevent us from getting a flu shot each year. It doesn't keep us from getting antibiotics when we have an illness. There are certain areas where God expects us to act responsibly and others where we have no control and we must trust in Him.
6. We agree that, just as it is up to each believer to live his/her life in accordance with God's will and plan in obedience to His moral laws, so also must we, who may provide guidance to young people, teach them how we go about knowing God's perfect will.
7. We agree that it begins with impressing upon [young people] their priceless worth to their Creator and His great love for each of us.
8. We agree that it continues with learning to appreciate the powerfully marvelous gift He gives a husband and wife in the act of procreation and to never take physical advantage of each other but to honor and respect each other, preferring the other to oneself.
9. We agree that there is NOTHING wrong with sex merely for the sake of pleasure between a married man and woman,
contrary to what some other Catholic posters on FR have stated before.The marriage bed is undefiled. Hebrews 13:410.We agree that we sin because we’re sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. ANY sin that someone commits began in the heart long before it was borne in the actions.
Let me try to address the few contested points that remain, in no particular order.
.
Actually, total abstinence is 100% effective. Even periodic abstinence is 100% effective, when one uses the most conservative rules (e.g. pre-ovulatory abstinence, plus the "Clearblue Fertility Monitor" $38.00 from WalMart!) So if a couple absolutely has to avoid pregnancy, e.g. in a situation where another pregnancy would threaten the life of the woman, they'd be morally wrong to risk it with a condom, but morally advisable to use the most conservative form of NFP --- no need to go for a hysterectomy!
Yes, the couple is involved in the decisions they make. But that is not a moral problem. In fact, it is a moral requirement.
The "shortest" proof-text Biblical objection to contraception is that it is Onanism (engaging in an act of intercourse altered so as to prevent conception) --- described in Genesis 38 as "evil in God's sight."
Before we get stuck on debating that, the far more "pervasive" Biblical objection to contraception is that it is "pharmakeia", sometimes translated as the making of magic potions (sorcery), but more accurately the sin of making/taking drugs that intentionally do harm. The ancient "sorcery" was actually unethical pharmacology: the use of potions to cause death, miscarriage, sterility in an person or animal; also trafficking in what we'd today call "party drugs," opiates, hallucinogens, "love potions" to arouse sexual desire.
Thus Christian medical ethics distinguishes between a flu shot or an antibiotic (meant to prevent or impede or heal disease) vs. a hormonal pill, patch, embeddable, implantable, or injectable dose (meant to prevent or impede normal physiological function.) In short, legitimate drugs restore a healthy normal condition; illegitimate drugs shut down a healthy normal condition.
First, NFP is not contraception, as discussed above. It does not impair natural fertility in any way.(Which is what makes contraceptives CONTRA-ceptive, and not just "non" conceptive.) It works with the God-given natural design, not against it. It works via abstinence, and I think you would agree that abstinence is not contraception. We wouldn't call our virgin 13-year-old daughters or granddaughters contraceptors, would we?)
Second, on *links* with problems we have today such as homosexuality, abortion, divorce and sexual immorality: I think you would agree that abstinence is NOT connected to homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and sexual immorality: both total and periodic abstinence (NFP) are negatively correlated with the above listed problems.
On the other hand, contraception is strongly positively correlated to these problems: statistically, and I would argue, causally.
Step back from the individual act of cortracepted intercourse, and widen your lens to look at a "contraceptive culture." We now --- and this is unprecedented in human history --- have a culture in which it is practically mandatory to let teachers train our children (via sex-ed) in the ideology that sex is not connected to the sanctity of life, is not connected to procreation, and therefore has no necessary connection to gender.
This is how contraception as a cultural product, as an ideology, leads straight to homosexuality as an ideology: because neither side (gay or straight) is actually committed to natural sex.
No one can deny that the "Sexual Revolution," which was fueled by the oral contraceptive, led to a vast increase (not decrease) in fornication, out-of-wedlock childbirths, abortion, STD's, divorce, gender confusion/dysphoria, gender rebellion, and many other ills.
There you have it. The sin of contraception is NOT the prevention of conception!! You can morally prevent conception by being a virgin. You can morally prevent conception by abstinence. You can morally prevent conception by NFP (which is a form of abstinence.) The specific sin of contraception is intentionally impairing - denaturing - contracepting an act of intercourse so it cannot achieve its natural end. It is not abstinence. It is sabotage.
As the "costs" of illicit sex go down, the incidence goes up. This follows a universal pattern of human behavior. You can predictably increase certain choices either by removing costs and risks, or by increasing rewards or benefits. We live in a society which does both: reduces the risks illicit sex, and increases benefits for nonmarital childbearing (if it comes to that.) . These are what political economists call "perverse incentives": they always, predictably, increase the incidence of the behavior.
Contraceptives dropped the costs/risks of illicit sex, and therefore skyrocketed illicit sex and marital breakdown.
But when we treat of these subjects again, at least we don't have to keep ardently insisting upon the points we already agree on, OK?
Trying to economize on words ... :o) Ha! Ha!Mrs. Don-o
‘Step back from the individual act of cortracepted intercourse, and widen your lens to look at a “contraceptive culture.” We now -— and this is unprecedented in human history -— have a culture in which it is practically mandatory to let teachers train our children (via sex-ed) in the ideology that sex is not connected to the sanctity of life, is not connected to procreation, and therefore has no necessary connection to gender.
‘This is how contraception as a cultural product, as an ideology, leads straight to homosexuality as an ideology: because neither side (gay or straight) is actually committed to natural sex.
‘No one can deny that the “Sexual Revolution,” which was fueled by the oral contraceptive, led to a vast increase (not decrease) in fornication, out-of-wedlock childbirths, abortion, STD’s, divorce, gender confusion/dysphoria, gender rebellion, and many other ills.’
Well stated, Mrs. Don-o.
You know, I used to be pro-contraception, 40 years ago when I was in my early 20's. I thought contraception was the solution to abortion. "Abortion is the fire, contraception is the water."
Now I can see from 40 years' adult perspective: "Abortion is the fire, contraception is the gasoline."
Why don’t you consider my point instead of lecturing me on the form my argumentation? I made an extemporaneous comment while packing for a trip. Be sure I am fully capable of writing a more scholarly critical analysis of the Jesus found in the Roman system. Perhaps I will take the time to do just that when I get back to Memphis, but until then I stand by my thesis-—Rome’s Jesus is not The Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture. Rome has another Jesus, another spirit, another gospel.
In the end it matters not one whit what I say or believe and it doesn’t what you say or believe. All that will matter at the Judgment is the truth. The only source of truth worth staking your eternal destiny on is the truth of Scripture. We had both better get our beliefs for God’s Word, not from men.
"Your belief, "X" is wrong."
But I don't believe "X".
"My scholarly analysis shows that you believe "X", and it's wrong.
You can see that, can't you? Your "scholarly analysis," whatever it is, must be off if it doesn't yield an interpretation of Catholicism which can be recognized by Catholics.
One good rule for this type of discussion is that you must be able to restate the belief of other person in such form that they can say, "Yes, that's it, that's what I believe as a Catholic."
Otherwise we get stuck in sheer absurdity, as happens so often on these forums:
"You worship Mary, and it's wrong."
But I don't worship Mary.
"Yes, you do."
No, I don't.
"Yes, you do."
No, I don't.
"Yes, you do, and it's wrong."
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.