Stanek weekend question: How should pro-lifers respond to baby daddy scandals?
Yesterday former US senator and presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted for spending campaign funds to hide the pregnancy of his mistress, Rielle Hunter. From ABC:
Edwards faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and or a fine of up to $250,000 for each charge, if convicted….
[P]rosecutors claim Edwards engaged in a conspiracy to protect his “public image as a devoted family man.” It alleges that Edwards was a direct participant, if not the architect, of a plot to solicit huge sums of money from two key political donors to cover up an affair that could have literally blown up his 2008 presidential bid….
[Former aide Andrew] Young and his wife have estimated that it cost Edwards’ benefactors $1 million in cash, private jets and hotel rooms to cover up the affair and Hunter’s pregnancy.
And the fallout continues for former CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after it was publicly revealed 2 weeks ago that he had fathered a son, now 13 years old, via a household staffer. Schwarzenegger’s wife, Maria Shriver, left him, and now at least one of their children has, too. According to The Examiner May 30:
On Monday it was learned… Patrick Schwarzenegger… moved out of the family home to rented apartment near UCLA.
Patrick, 17, had been living solo in the family’s massive Brentwood mansion since May 16 when his father announced publicly he had an illicit affair with a household staffer over a decade ago that resulted in a child…. This was presumably the first time Patrick learned he had another sibling….
[Shriver] moved out of the home earlier this year and Schwarzenegger has been staying at the family’s vacation home in Sun Valley, Idaho….
Neither of these stories would have exploded on the national scene, or even been learned of by the wives and families, had the mothers aborted. The children are themselves innocent victims at the same time they are blessings.
Meanwhile these tragedies demonstrate the failure of the free love/contraceptive mentality, which our community also teaches against.
How should pro-lifers respond for scandals such as this?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think we should not get involved in them. The children are innocent and hurt by this attention. You are right the men would have loved for the children to be aborted to spare them the public shame but you must wonder if part of the mother’s motivation is pure or if blackmail/support is part of t he parenting motivation. With DNA today it is pretty hard for the man to deny paternity.
I think it’s presumptuous to say that these men would have preferred their children aborted. Nobody knows that.
Don’t watch the tv shows, don’t buy the magazines, don’t spread the gossip. The children deserve better than to be tabloid fodder. It’s right that we should know the truth about a politician who is misrepresenting himself (like John Edwards), but leave the babies alone!
When these children come to mind, we should pray that they come to know God personally and be reconciled to Him, find their identity in Him, and that He will take care of them as they adjust to their unfortunate family circumstances. Some of these children – from the womb until today – were thrust into the limelight as an OOPS. Now these children have to integrate with adulterous parents, step-siblings and (later on in life) even work out feelings towards a parent who was a cheat toward an ill cheated-upon (such as Elizabeth Edwards).
“Meanwhile these tragedies demonstrate the failure of the free love/contraceptive mentality, which our community also teaches against.”
No, they demonstrate the failure of two powerful political figures to not cheat on their wives. The fact that you would even try to implicate contraception in this mess is risible and dishonest.
If we have to say anything, we should insist that the scumbag behavior was the illicit sex, not the fact that they got the women pregnant through it.
It always makes me angry when people who have children resulting from illicit sex are criticized. Everyone who has illicit sex is just as guilty of the exact same sin. If a child results, they deserve support, not a stigma. They don’t have the privilege of presenting an innocent face to the world. In a world where children are treated as commodities who can be disposed of at will, their choice to do the right thing is commendable.
joan, 10:28am
This is the one time I definitely agree with you. This behavior is as old as the human race..
I think it’s presumptuous to say that these men would have preferred their children aborted. Nobody knows that.
Seriously? These two men are pro-abortion, probably for circumstances such as this. Here are two sources VERY close to the situation that claimed John Edwards wanted abortion:
“In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Bob Woodruff, Edwards’ former aide, Andrew Young made shocking claims about Edwards’ relationship with Hunter. He revealed that Edwards tried to pull him into his scandalous relationship with Hunter, requesting that he convince her to have an abortion,clearing him of any ties to her.
When Edwards first found out about the pregnancy, he was furious with Hunter. He reportedly screamed at her, accusing her of lying about her inability to get pregnant. He accused her of trying to set him up by getting pregnant on purpose.”
And this from the mistress herself:
“He always said that he would support whatever decision I made,” Hunter told GQ. “But I believe on some level he was hoping that I would get an abortion. Because he didn’t — he wasn’t happy about the timing. Which is understandable. He was married and running for president.”
The fact that you would even try to implicate contraception in this mess is risible and dishonest.
You really think people would cheat on their spouses as often if they didn’t have contraceptives and abortion to hide it?
These children exist because contraception fails and some women will not abort for whatever reason (not always because of moral opposition to killing the child- many women try to get pregnant with children from married/wealthy men for blackmail meal ticket reasons, or even unintentionally get pregnant but refuse to abort because they hope the child will make the man love them or keep the man in their life, or in John Edwards case, because the woman he impregnated was bat sh!t crazy “she believed [the baby] to be the reincarnated spirit of a Buddhist monk who would save the world.”) I am happy little Francis was allowed to keep her life and limbs, but I am saying that your attempts to divorce sexual immorality from contraception and abortion is not true.
Both contraception and abortion exist to allow and sustain sexual immorality.
Yes, Joan, Jacqueline hit it on the head. (“You really think people would cheat on their spouses as often if they didn’t have contraceptives and abortion to hide it?”)
This sort of behavior is indeed as old as the human race. The difference it that today, according to the free love/contraceptive crowd, these pregnancies shouldn’t have happened. Or are you going to try to say these people were idiotic dolts thanks to abstinence education? or that they didn’t have the means to get contraceptives?
Then, of course, the other difference today is they have abortion as a ready fallback plan. And as Jacqueline also pointed out, it is used by powerful men to coerce weak women. (Also recall Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers.)
We now know there is a personal reason both these men are pro-abortion. They’re both cads. Male pigs support abortion. What does that say about abortion?
I think that the right should try to make “sanctity of marriage” legislation more comprehensive, and when somebody has an affair, fine them or throw them in prison.
Hi Jacqueline
You’re assuming these pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure. Perhaps these babies were very much wanted by their mothers and no one bothered with contraception. its the fathers who are in hot water. Of course John Edwards tried every way to weasel his way out of this. Another story as old as the human race. I recall King David of biblical fame did the same when he fertilized Bathsheba. Maybe both men should have just kept flies zipped, Edwards literally, David figuratively. I assume they both knew where babies come from.
Does modern day contraception and abortion promote more marital infidelity? Please Jacqueline, extramarital infidelity is nothing new and lack of contraception, which by the way has been around for thousands of years, has never put a stop to it. People took chances then and they do now. Is there more infidelity now then there would be without contraception and abortion? Review history Jacqueline. You will find everything old is new again.
Why do you suppose prostitution is the world’s oldest profession and most customers are married men?
Well said Jacqueline and Jill! Yeah, did John Edwards not have access to birth control? No one ever gave that man and a rubber and banana and demonstrated proper condom usage? What?
X-GOP, I don’t think thats even necessary. Their lives are in ruin. Thats punishment enough. I do believe the jilted spouses ought to walk away with as much of their dirtbag hubby’s money as possible. I even think they ought to be able to take the lascivious ladies who slept with their husbands to court.
Meanwhile these tragedies demonstrate the failure of the free love/contraceptive mentality, which our community also teaches against.
I have a big problem with the statement that “our community” – I assume this means the pro-life community – teaches against contraception. (I also assume that Jill believes anyone who supports contraception believes in the “contraceptive mentality.” Please correct me if I’m wrong.) From what I’ve seen over a number of years, pro-lifers have various and assorted views on contraception.
I don’t know if “baby daddy” scandals are something pro-lifers really need to respond to. These men should’t have cheated on their spouses, but they did, and now they owe it to their out-of-wedlock children to be the best fathers they can be.
Pro-lifers aren’t concerned with the decisions that politicians make for themselves, only with the decisions they try to make for everyone else. I mean, does anyone who thinks that the Live Action videos provide just cause to defund Planned Parenthood care about David Vitter patronizing hookers? Of course not. The pro-life response to these scandals is going to be the same as it for any other political scandal–entirely dependent upon the perpetrator’s voting record.
Lisa,
Certainly you will agree that there is a huge difference between promoting the sexual abuse of minors and an adult patronizing a hooker?
Speaking of a perpetrator’s voting record, would that explain why feminists who howled like banshees over Clarence Thomas’ alleged lousy pick up lines were strangely silent when Bill Clinton was accused of everything from exposing himself to rape?
I think, Jill, that you and other folks on this forum assume every pro-life person is a Catholic like you. Way to splinter the movement.
See, you aren’t just anti-abortion. You are anti-contraception, anti-homosexuality, anti-single parenting, anti in-vitro fertilization, anti-sexuality in any other form than between a married man and woman who are open to creating babies.
I hope every pro-lifer that reads this is aware of your true stance. If you are Protestant and managing your family size… Jill disapproves. It isn’t just about the fact you wouldn’t have an abortion if you accidentally got pregnant.
And Jaqueline – I don’t like these guys myself, but to say you know the truth because some former aide made a fame grab by doing an interview? Weak. Why don’t you just read TMZ and get your facts there?
Pro-lifers should stick to abortion and stay out of gossip and judgment calls. No one had any abortions in these cases – so mind your own business.
Mary,
Yes, sexual immorality is nothing new under the sun, but do you not see the glaring increase in sexual immorality, death and destruction since the invent of modern-day contraceptive methods? Adultery, extra-marital sex, out-of-wedlock births and abortion: These have all skyrocketed since the contraception became legal and widespread. Let me show you some recent history:
1. Divorce rates before contraception were 2 in 1,000. Now they are 500+ out of 1,000. HALF! Less than 1% to 50% after contraception stripped the dignity of sex, made it a recreational activity before marriage, in marriage and outside of marriage with limited consequences.
2. Out-of-wedlock births jumped from 224,000 to 1.2 million since the Pill became legal in 1965 to unmarried women. That’s 40% of kids living abandoned by the fathers to single mother households- most often in poverty.
3. Now, marital infidelity is not something you can get objective data on, but we certainly see the fall-out from it. The option to prevent children or kill children that results from adulterous affairs mean that we can’t truly know how much philandering has increased, but you can’t deny based on those that are caught that it has increased significantly.
4. Contraception is supposed to reduce abortion, but half of those seeking abortions were using birth control. Half of all pregnancies are still unintended in the U.S. Family Planning Perspectives (a pro-abortion publication) has found that “18 percent of couples who use condoms and 12 percent who take the Pill become pregnant within two years.” This is a conservative estimate.
5. Most importantly, contraception and abortion have attacked the dignity of women, turning us into objective carnal playthings for men and not respected human beings that bear new life. Instead, babies are something to be avoided and done away with, an unfortunate side effect and not a blessing of a loving union between two people committed to eachother for life. This “Playboy Philosophy” was something clearly noted in Humana Vitae by Pope Paul IV, that women would be used “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” Indeed, contraceptives have men using women long before he has any commitment to her, and we are surprised that men routinely abandon their children? And women use men as well! Using is a two-way street, but women bear a disproportionate amount of the pain from it with STD’s, abandonment, pornography, etc.
All of what I’ve cited and more (like the use of contraception and abortion to control groups of people the government wants to limit or exploit)- these were prophesied by the Holy Father in 1968. THEY HAVE ALL COME TO PASS! Contraception and abortion have destroyed our society, murdered our children, left millions fatherless…I could go on and on. And I came to this conclusion as a counter-cultural Protestant. It wasn’t what I was taught or told to believe- it was mere intellectual honesty that made me quite unpopular in my Protestant circles.
What other proof do you need?
Facebook aborts unborn baby’s page:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/press-here/Unborn-Baby-is-Popular-on-Facebook-122974683.html
This was some pro-abortion, anti-personhood jerk who couldn’t stomach the idea that a preborn human might have feelings, opinions, and relationships with their family so they pulled the page under the guise of rule following “users must be 13yrs of age or older”. Of course common sense would tell them the baby can’t reach the keyboard, but whatever. We can let it get out that preborn people might have a social LIFE now can we?
Kay- Jill Stanek is not Catholic. Maybe YOU should get your facts straight before suggesting that I look for different news sources?
Kay, I agree that I sometimes raise an eyebrow at the very CATHOLIC RAH RAH RAH attitudes on this board. I am not offended that they are Catholic but that they assume every single pro-lifer is also.
That being said, I am a born again Christian (I guess you could say “protestant” though I do not call myself that) and I actually agree with the Catholic church about contraception. I won’t go so far as to judge others for using non-abortificient contraception (especially when my Catholic husband insists we use a barrier method) BUT I can say contraception has hurt my marriage terribly. There is a lot of wisdom and scriptural truth to not using contraception.
Oy, vey…
Kay, with all due respect: you might just as easily have tattooed “Newbie troll” on your forehead; are you unaware of the fact that Jill is not Catholic?
You might also be interested to know that errors are, on the whole, more genially received and more gently corrected if the errant one doesn’t leap on the scene, spraying bullets in every direction and making a naked attempt to “divide and conquer”. This issue has been brought up numerous times, on this board alone, without your hoped-for “great Stanek schism”; and the issue will probably be brought up countless times in the future, with (aside from the normal zeal and zest and occasional friction, in the course of any debate about substantial, non-fluff topics) no such dire social effects.
Is that sufficiently clear? And if so, could you either lay down your flame-thrower and discuss like a civilized person, or else go back under Jill’s bridge with the other trolls?
Certainly you will agree that there is a huge difference between promoting the sexual abuse of minors and an adult patronizing a hooker?
I would agree that there is a difference between the two things, and anyone who engages in the former activity should be prosecuted. To your second question, yes, political differences probably account for the different responses to the Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton allegations, at least in some cases.
Hi Jacqueline,
I understand your points but other factors may be responsible as well. We tend to view history in the range of our own lives. Look at what has “increased” or “decreased” over the past 30+ years. This ”proves” a cause and effect. Well look at history before contraception was so easily available. Humans exercised little sexual restraint. There have been radical changes in divorce laws and attitudes toward divorce. The illegitimacy rate was very high in 1918, the year my mother was born BTW, and yes, her mother was pregnant out of wedlock until she quickly got married.
Again Jacqueline I respect your perspective but in the context of human history, IMHO at least, it may be difficult to establish a definite cause and effect. You may find instead that everything old is “new” again.
To answer the question: There is a distinct difference between condemning an action but not the result. People don’t see this distinction.
For example, I condemn the action of rape, but celebrate the lives of any children that come from it, as they are precious human beings. I condemn the action of IVF, but celebrate the lives of any children that SURVIVE it, as they are precious human beings who got out very lucky. I condemn extra-marital sex (mostly because it’s destructive to the children that come from it), but I celebrate the lives of any children that come from it, although I am greatly angry at their parents for putting selfish, immoral sexual desires above their families. Seriously. I’ve lost count of the baby showers I’ve thrown for mothers who conceived there children in prostitution, out-of-wedlock, etc. Children are to be celebrated and mothers supported, even though I think many of these mothers have done their children irreperable injustice in conceiving them in such circumstances.
So I condemn the immoral acts that these adults did that resulted in these children, but that doesn’t mean I am not grateful that the children survived. I still don’t think it’s too much to ask for adults to exercise self-control and not conceive children that will grow up without the basic things a child should have- like a father in their home.
Thank you Jacqueline!! Awesome post.
Hi Jacqueline,
An excellent post. You rightfully make the point that it is the immoral and irresponsible actions of the people involved that produced these children. The children are completely innocent, and no less capable of giving much in their lifetime.
Mary,
To clarify- I am not looking at history in the range of my own life. I am looking pre-1965 (the legalization of contraception) and post-legalization because those are the relevant dates. They just happen to include me from 1980 to present. And the fact that your family member got married buttresses my argument, because 88% of children conceived out of wedlock today are aborted. Before abortion and contraception, men and women tried to remedy their failures and give children a good life. Now, we throw children away in pieces or abandon them completely. There used to be expectations.
It seems to me that you are clearly ignoring overwhelming evidence by CHOICE. Whether you see contraception as the one and only cause for society’s ills is irrelevant to fact that anyone can see that the “sex without consequences” mentality has resulted in the destruction of millions of lives. You are choosing not to see this because you want to support contraception for whatever reason you may have. I can understand that. Maybe, if I had been faced with the evidence that most contraception is abortive *after* I had used it, I would be scrambling around looking for contrary evidence to make me feel better in spite of the objective truth because I didn’t want to face the fact that I had unwittingly played a role in the death of my babies- and couldn’t know who I’d lost. I could see me doing that. Maybe if I wanted to use contraception, abortive or not, I would be refuting logic and reason to rationalize my choices. (That I actually can’t see me doing, but I know why others could). Luckily, I came to my conclusions before I had used contraception or otherwise had a vested self-interest in denying reality. It’s easy for me to see the truth because I don’t have to defend myself, feel hipocritical, or admit any wrongdoing.
With people who choose to believe what they want to beleive in spite of overwhelming evidence, there is often a reason why that no amount of fact can change. I don’t know the reason in your case and won’t speculate, but there is CLEARLY a reason. There is no intellectual reason to refute what it obviously true. Whether contraception is the cause or not is debatable (as with any causation argument) but there is not denying that it has not helped raise moral standards as a society.
I’d like to repeat one of Jacqueline’s (excellent) comments, which echoes Jill’s own: contraception (and by that, in this case, I mean “artificial contraception”–condoms, IUD’s, etc.) is not a “Catholic” issue, per se, despite the fact that the vast majority of non-Catholics no longer object to it. This is an instance of pure reason, morality, and plain common sense.
Let’s leave aside the statistics, for a moment (which can be dubious in their formulation and in their interpretation, to put it mildly), and examine artificial contraceptive’s purpose… the “objective end” for which it was made. Contraception, by its very design and intended purpose, separates sexual union from one’s biological, spiritual and emotional openness to procreation (i.e. having children). It reduces sexuality to its lowest characteristic: pleasure. (Consider, for a moment, how the secular world views sex: it views the pleasurable aspects of sexual activity as the paramount, if not the only relevant, factor. It sometimes builds a sort of “mystique” around sex, built on a sort of worship of its capacity for pleasure [shades of pagan fertility cults, but without the fertility!], but that’s just an inflamed version of the same thing.) Those who believe in Christ, and who take His teaching on the human person seriously, cannot be so reductionist and chevalier about sexuality; God created it, and He would not have done so by accident, or to no purpose. He would never have taken the most holy and powerful act that we humans can achieve: cooperating with God to create, OUT OF NOTHING, a new, immortal soul who will spend eternity either in Heaven or in Hell, but will never be erased, and united it to such sublime pleasure (physically and emotionally, if done properly, and without sin), if it weren’t meant to stay that way. Which of the two do you think is more important, anyway: uniting in free, total, faithful and fruitful love (parallel to how Christ loves us) and being part of the awesome moment when God literally reaches down from Heaven and creates, out of nothing, an immortal soul to unite with the new 1-celled body in the mother’s womb… or experiencing the sterilized physical pleasure of an orgasm (and its attendant experiences, positive and negative)?
If nothing else, consider this: when Christ loves us, He does not “pick and choose” the parts of us that He wants to love. What does that say about us, who are called to love as Christ loves, if we slap on a condom and “pick and choose” our spouse’s body to “love” (if it isn’t outright lust), but not his/her fertility?
I don’t want to step on anyone’s sensibilities or anger anyone… but I do want to point put that contraception, and opposition to it, is not a provincial, “merely Catholic” thing (such as kissing the Pope’s ring, or something), and I don’t think it’s helpful (or true) to present it as such.
Great post Paladin.
I hope you don’t mean ME when you said presenting it as a Catholic thing. The truth is that my church doesn’t teach anything about contraception. The Catholic church does. I have been having a lot of talks with Baptist pastors about this (including my brother-in-law) This is an issue born-again Christians need to stop ignoring because it makes us uncomfortable. We need to delve into the Bible to gain truth again and I do think what you posted was absolutely true and makes a lot of sense!
“What other proof do you need?”
None of your statistics, even assuming that they are all valid, are “proof” of anything; they indicate correlation but not causation. I could accurately say that, since the eradication of smallpox, “adultery, extra-marital sex, out-of-wedlock births and abortion” have all skyrocketed. Would that be proof that the eradication of smallpox has led to these things?
“What other proof do you need?”
Something other than a selective reading of the facts.
I could, just as easily, relate out-of-wedlock births to the NASA budget.
Seriously, y’all- How you ever heard the term “face validity?” It’s means, does the hypothesis, on its face, look like one variable theoretically corresponds to the other. Smallpox, NASA- none of those have face validity. No one could suggest a relationship between them. Contraception. abortion, affairs, out-of-wedlock pregnancies- these are all closely related. Theoretically, they make sense. In fact, it Pope Paul IV was hypothesizing, he would have been scientifically correct.
Let’s talk baby social science inquiry here for a moment: To suggest causation you need 3 factors: a correlation (got it), time order (got it) and controlling for confounding variables (not possible). The third is why causation in a real-world social science environment is nigh impossible. However, what I’ve given makes the most compelling argument one can make in the social sphere. Give me some confounding variables with face validity that aren’t absurd and we can talk about what you all think causes these societal problems. I have made an outstanding case. You have made no claims. “Your wrong” is not a claim. WHY am I wrong? HOW am I wrong?
I regret using the word “proof” and should have said “evidence.” Nonetheless, I have made a compelling argument and you have not. So come on- make a counter-claim. Show me how society has BENEFITTED from conception.
“It reduces sexuality to its lowest characteristic: pleasure.”
How and why is pleasure–a biological function–a “lower” characteristic than the other biological function associated with sex–reproduction? In fact, I think you could make a fair argument that certain qualities of sex beyond its immediate physical pleasure, such as the emotional and mental bonding between partners, something unique to human sexual relations, are very much “higher” characteristics than its procreative function, which is something common to all animals that reproduce sexually. And obviously the “official” Catholic position does allow for sex that is not only non-reproductive, but intentionally so, by endorsing this “natural family planning” business that is so popular here. How is intentionally dodging pregnancy by scheduling sex around ovulation cycles any different, in practice, than using condoms or birth control pills?
“Seriously, y’all- How you ever heard the term “face validity?” It’s means, does the hypothesis, on its face, look like one variable theoretically corresponds to the other.”
One variable theoretically corresponding to another, absent a sustained and obvious empirical demonstration of causation, is not enough to support a hypothesis, especially one as questionable as yours. If the presence of “face validity” was enough to conclude that a given hypothesis is correct, there wouldn’t be any purpose to experimental or quasi-experimental research designs to begin with. Besides, any hypothesis that sounds reasonable enough to spend resources on exploring further in an experimental or quasi-experimental fashion is already going to have “face validity” to begin with because no one would bother to explore a relationship between dependent and independent variables that is obviously nonsensical or spurious.
Also, a theory involves explaining WHY two variables are related, not just that they are related. I have explained WHY contraception has led to these calamities: the ability to have sex without children, to cover up infidelity, to increase extra-marital sex, etc. These are make theoretical sense in explaining the rise in social problems. You can’t explain why smallpox or the NASA budget has any relationship. So give me a real confounding variable.
You say, “Something other than a selective reading of the facts.” Give me an NON-SELECTIVE set of facts.
Just note: Your confounding variables need to have an explanatory element and meet all the criteria that my argument has met.
Joan, obviously we think emotional bonding between partners is important (hence why its for marriage). We would also advocate sex ONLY when fertile if we thought procreation was the ONLY reason to have sex.
Sex has many purposes. In the Bible yes, it is for pleasure and to bind the man and woman together emotionally (Paul talks about this) but what we are saying is you don’t divorce sex from procreation. That is not Biblical. Just like I don’t think you should divorce sex from pleasure (a man should not have sex in a way that suits only him and not think of his wife’s pleasure also etc…) Sex = procreation AND pleasure. Both are equally important!
Hi, Sydney!
You wrote:
I hope you don’t mean ME when you said presenting it as a Catholic thing.
Oh, heavens, no! I was thinking entirely of Kay, and those of like mind… no worries! :)
The truth is that my church doesn’t teach anything about contraception. The Catholic church does. I have been having a lot of talks with Baptist pastors about this (including my brother-in-law) This is an issue born-again Christians need to stop ignoring because it makes us uncomfortable.
I agree, wholeheartedly! In fact, that was a point I was trying to make, but didn’t make explicitly: it’s absolutely possible for a non-Catholic to reject contraception without jettisoning their whole belief-system en masse. One can decide to reject contraception, for example, without feeling compelled to rush right out to join the nearest RCIA class at the local Catholic parish! :) (I can’t imagine that any particular faith-community cherishes contraception because it marks them as non-Catholic, anyway… but maybe I’m just being an optimist…) The only valid reason for a reasonable adult to adopt any belief at all is because he/she has become convinced of its truth!
Hi Jacqueline,
I must admit my history definitely predates yours :). My point about my grandmother is that the illegitimacy rate was very high in 1918. The fact my grandmother gave birth is great or I wouldn’t be here but one can say this just “proves” that everything old is “new” again. This is not the first time the illegitimacy rate has soared. I understand 65% of colonial brides were pregnant when they married. Check out the “roaring twenties” in this country. My grandmother worked in the welfare office during the Great Depression and would tell my mother of the prominent men in the city who were impregnating the household maids and abandoning them to welfare. Sound familiar? All this proves what? I think that human behavior runs in cycles, but never really changes.
I respect and understand the point you are making, but we have to review human history as a whole before we talk about cause and effect and “increases” and ”decreases”.
Numbers and stats are not my strong point, the avid study of human history is. From that perspective Jacqueline is where I question your conclusions. I do not choose to “ignore” anything.
“Joan, obviously we think emotional bonding between partners is important (hence why its for marriage). We would also advocate sex ONLY when fertile if we thought procreation was the ONLY reason to have sex.”
Okay, so we’ve established that there are perfectly acceptable reasons for having sex besides procreation. We’ve established that, according to Catholic doctrine, there are even acceptable methods of having sex while explicitly avoiding procreation. So it is at least sometimes acceptable to have intentionally non-procreative sex; hence, at least sometimes, sex and procreation are divorced from one another. So why is contraception not an acceptable method for doing this?
I can’t believe I’m doing this, Joan; perhaps it’s because you were so unusually civil and salient, but I’ll try a reply to you. There may be hope for you to relinquish your troll suit and knee-jerk gain-saying, yet! (We’ll work on your heterodox beliefs re: Catholic moral law, some other time, perhaps.)
You wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
“[contraception] reduces sexuality to its lowest characteristic: pleasure.”
[Joan]
How and why is pleasure–a biological function–a “lower” characteristic than the other biological function associated with sex–reproduction? In fact, I think you could make a fair argument that certain qualities of sex beyond its immediate physical pleasure, such as the emotional and mental bonding between partners, something unique to human sexual relations, are very much “higher” characteristics than its procreative function, which is something common to all animals that reproduce sexually.
Perhaps you might note that “pleasure” is also something we share in common with all sexually-reproducing animals… and is therefore lower, by your stated standard (to the extent that I understand it)? You might want to put a bit more thought into that argument.
As for the emotional/mental bonding (I would add “spiritual bonding”, though I don’t know if you believe in any such thing): certainly, it’s important. It’s (as you mention, below) one of the two primary ends of marriage (i.e. the unification of the spouses, and the procreation of children–two sides of the same ontological coin, actually, with the first being the subjective end, and the second being the objective end); see Blessed Pope John Paul II’s “Love and Responsibility” (written while he was “Cardinal Woytyla”). I don’t see how that advances your case… unless you think the two purposes are somehow opposed to each other? They are not; in fact, if one is removed, the other shatters. Trying to unite (emotionally, spiritually, etc.) through sex, while deliberately sterilizing the act, wounds and divides, rather than unifies. Trying to conceive a child without uniting the spouses in the natural marital act (e.g. in-vitro fertilization, etc.) objectifies the child and makes him/her a commodity (wanted for the sake of the please he/she will give the parents, rather than for his/her own sake: that’s the critical difference between “receiving” something from the Lord as a gift, and “taking” something for ourselves), and makes the child, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, “an orphan of living parents”. The two ends are not opposed, but require each other intimately.
And obviously the “official” Catholic position
Oh, come, now! This turn of phrase is as silly as saying that the “official” PETA position forbids the eating of flesh meat of animals (implying that “unofficial” positions might allow for a pig roast, while still enjoying the full benefits of PETA membership). There really is a point beyond which one mush “fish, or cut bait”: accept the Church as true, or leave Her. Anything less is fundamentally dishonest… and I think, at some level, you already know that.
does allow for sex that is not only non-reproductive, but intentionally so, by endorsing this “natural family planning” business that is so popular here.
It is also, in the eyes of the Church to Whom you claim to belong, the only morally licit means available for the spacing of children, within marriage. I take it you view NFP with disdain? I see no logical reason why you would…
How is intentionally dodging pregnancy by scheduling sex around ovulation cycles any different, in practice, than using condoms or birth control pills?
Objectively, it uses lawful means to do so (by avoiding artificial contraceptives, whose use is objectively and intrinsically immoral). Subjectively, it encourages all the things necessary for a healthy marriage: communication, openness, and acceptance of each other as God designed us to be. (As our NFP instructor said: “If you two can talk together about cervical mucous, you can talk about anything!”)
Now, if you mean to ask whether a selfish couple is sinning by using NFP to avoid children permanently, and/or for selfish reasons… then yes, that’d be a case where the particular use of a good method (NFP) is being used in an immoral way, toward an immoral end. You’re right, if you mean to say that NFP should never be used as a “condom-less condom”, as it were.
“Nonetheless, I have made a compelling argument and you have not.”
I’m not making the argument; you are. It’s incumbent upon you to be convincing.
As to alternative explanations, how about equal rights for women, no-fault divorce laws, or women entering the post-war workplace?
All of those factors have been cited as explanatory by recognized authorities.
Your argument may seem valid it on its face to you because it fits your world view.
Jacqueline 1:43PM
Great comeback!
BTW Kay, I’m the resident agnostic on this board, which also had a PL atheist who unfortunately passed away. People have varying religious and non religious beliefs on this board as does the PL movement as a whole so you should avoid assumptions. Jill is very open and fair and does not expect her blog to be a mutual admiration society or a collection of Stepford Wives. BTW when you assume you make an (ass) our of (u) and (me).
I think one of the ways the pro-life community really hurts itself is by saying, “yes, ban abortions. And don’t use contraception at all.”
Paladin can spin it around with fancy words all he wants – there are millions of Christians that should feel safe in their salvation that are using contraception often. There are millions of Christians that should feel safe in their salvation that are past child bearing years, and continue to have sex.
And last thing – it is a view I’ve only seen in the Catholic church. I’m sure it is out there in other pockets, but I sure haven’t seen it.
I thoroughly expect that this discussion will soon degenerate into posturing about whether young women should have access to HPV vaccine.
Focus on the Family’s Dobson says, “No!” “It encourages promiscuity,” he says.
Where does this madness end?
“Perhaps you might note that “pleasure” is also something we share in common with all sexually-reproducing animals… and is therefore lower, by your stated standard (to the extent that I understand it)? You might want to put a bit more thought into that argument.”
I was simply questioning why one biological function–pleasure–is categorically lesser than another, in response to your claim that it is the “lowest characteristic” of sex. I brought up mental, emotional (and, yes, spiritual, if you want to go there) bonding as an example of something that should, theoretically, be higher than the reproductive function of sex because it is unique to humans, and something which can be accomplished during non-procreative sex.
” I don’t see how that advances your case… unless you think the two purposes are somehow opposed to each other?”
My point is that, logically, there is a good argument to be made that those bonding functions are, in fact, the highest characteristic of sex because of their uniqueness to humans.
“Trying to unite (emotionally, spiritually, etc.) through sex, while deliberately sterilizing the act, wounds and divides, rather than unifies.”
And what I’m trying to understand here is how contraception “sterilizes” the act in a way that “natural family planning” does not, even though they both have the same purpose and function.
“There really is a point beyond which one mush “fish, or cut bait”: accept the Church as true, or leave Her.”
There’s a distinct and material difference between accepting the fundamentals of the Church as true–which I do–and slavishly observing thousands of years worth of legalistic minutiae. The Church is a monolithic, hierarchical organization and like any such organization it is subject to pervasive bureaucratic inertia that is regressive and counter-productive to its most important goals. The current topic of discussion here is, to my mind, a great example of this. Obviously, the Church recognizes the reality that many dedicated couples who want to have sex are not ready or capable of raising offspring, hence “natural family planning”, and yet accepting an artificial alternative to this, with exactly the same purpose, is somehow unacceptable. To ignore this discrepancy would be to reject the product of my own mental faculties, which is something no rational being should ever be asked or expected to do.
“It is also, in the eyes of the Church to Whom you claim to belong, the only morally licit means available for the spacing of children, within marriage. I take it you view NFP with disdain? I see no logical reason why you would…”
I don’t view it with disdain. If couples find success using it, then more power to them. I just don’t see it as different, in any meaningful way, to the contraception the Church categorically rejects on the basis that it separates the conjugal act from reproduction, because the exclusive purpose of natural family planning is to do that very thing. In fact, if the statistics I’ve seen quoted here hold up in that NFP actually is more effective than condoms or birth control pills, then you could make a fair argument that a couple using a condom is actually more open to the possibility of pregnancy than a couple using natural family planning, and therefore less separated from one side of sex’s “ontological coin”.
“Now, if you mean to ask whether a selfish couple is sinning by using NFP to avoid children permanently, and/or for selfish reasons… then yes, that’d be a case where the particular use of a good method (NFP) is being used in an immoral way, toward an immoral end. You’re right, if you mean to say that NFP should never be used as a “condom-less condom”, as it were.”
A “condom-less condom” is what it inherently is because its exclusive purpose is to avoid pregnancy. This all seems very gray for the devoutly observant Catholic trying to engage in sex with his or her spouse without producing a baby. Is there some kind of bright line rule about when NFP becomes a tool for immorality? I’m sure couples trying to avoid conception while at the same time staying within the moral boundaries of their faith would like to know exactly at what point it crosses the line from licit to illicit.
mp,
I’m far more concerned about the dangerous side effects of the HPV vaccine than I am anything else.
EGV,
You’d been getting so reasonable and civil, there, for a bit; let’s not spoil it by being an inflammatory jerk, all right? Did you put even a split-second’s thought into that reply? You succeeded in annoying me, but it did scarce else.
First: dismissing one’s opponent’s arguments as mere “fancy words” is hardly the pinnacle of logic. Try again, if you expect to be taken seriously.
Second, re: your “feel safe in their salvation” comment: surely you see that Joan, or anyone else (or even you, who place abortion below social security reform and other purely political concerns) could say the very same thing about self-proclaimed Christians who support “abortion rights”? Google “Catholics for Choice” and other heretical groups, if you need some concrete data to that effect. I’m afraid you’re simply not qualified to canonize any given practice as “safe for all Christians, never fear!”, friend.
Third: forgive me, sir, but you’re showing rather profound ignorance of the Catholic position (in addition to a failure even to scan the previous comments in this thread) if you even imagine that “sex after child-bearing years” is somehow on the Catholic Church’s “do not do” list. However did you come up with that nonsense?
Fourth: even a half-careful reading of the posts above would explain that, when I (and others) said that “the contraception issue was not strictly a Catholic one”, we were speaking of the fact that non-Catholics are quite free to embrace it without fear of threat to the main body of their other beliefs, and that the Church doesn’t “copyright” or “trademark” the belief; it’s a conclusion from the natural law, not merely from Church Magisterial teaching.
(You also haven’t met many Amish, Mennonites, or other Plain People, have you? They do not embrace contraception, either. But again: that was hardly the point.)
Care to try again, with a bit more thought and a bit less swagger?
Paladin
I apologize if I offended you.
I’ll make it simple. Christian couple doesn’t want kids yet and they used condoms. Are they sinning?
If so, I’ve got my Bible close – point to where.
Hope all else is well – recall election is getting closer around here – not excited for all the ads to start. Glad I have a DVR.
Ex-GOP, actually the belief the Catholic Church holds today concerning contraception was what was held by all of Christianity up to the 19th century. The Anglican Church was the first to change that belief from it being sinful to not being sinful. After which a domino effect took place throughout other denominations in response to the secular sexual revolution and adding kindle to it. You say it is not a sinful act against God as the majority of denominations now accept it, but truth is not created or changed by majority vote. Also, there is no beyond child-bearing age with God.
Robert,
No beyond child bearing age with God? I beg to differ. Its called menopause.
Robert – yes – I’m aware of that – in the 1800’s, some Christian denominations embraced and supported slavery as well.
So the question I posed to Paladin – let me know if you’d like.
Elizabeth, kinswoman of Mary of Nazareth, gave up hoping for a child. She was past menopause, and her husband was elderly. Yet she conceived, and became the mother of the man called John the Baptist.
Hi Robert,
I don’t believe anything is said about menopause where Elizabeth is concerned. Also childbearing years began in the teens and most people were grandparents in their thirties and forties. Elizabeth may have been considered old by her society’s standards and certainly beyond what was considered childbearing age, but she may have only been in her late thirties or early forties and not menopausal. Wasn’t Mary only around 15 when she had Jesus? Her “aged” cousin may not have been all that aged. The same with her husband.
Kay, 1:29p, Jacqueline and Paladin are right. I’m Protestant, not Catholic. And I know you’re also right that many pro-lifers do not oppose contraceptives. But even if they don’t oppose them for moral reasons, as I do, they should oppose hormonal contraceptives and the IUD for the same reason they oppose abortion – because the former may result in abortion, and the latter does for sure. Were you aware of that? Thanks.
Mary, if you do not want to believe that Elizabeth was post-menopausal, then I refer you to Sarah who was 90 years old when she conceived. But either way, you stated earlier that you did not believe in God. Which would mean you would not believe in miracles or such things to begin with. My post was to Ex-GOP, not to you :)
Hi Robert,
Its not what I want to believe, I just don’t remember the bible specifically mentioning she was menopausal. Also, concerning Sarah, was the year of the people who dwelled in the desert the calender year we know it as now? Exactly how did they measure time? It was said Sarah was well past childbearing years. As I said childbearing years were usually in the teens. Life in the desert was hard and people aged early. Sarah and her husband may very well have looked aged and still been in their forties.
Lots of factors here that indicate Sarah may not have been 90y/o by our calender year.
Robert, 5:42PM
This is an open forum and people are free to respond to any posts and do. I did not say I do not believe in God, I said am agnostic, which means, to me, that I question seriously who or what created us. Also concerning miracles, please don’t presume to tell me what I believe.
Hey Mary.
I think what Robert might be referring to is Luke 1:36 where the angel Gabriel tells Mary “And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren” specifically the part where she is referred to as (otherwise) barren. I mean, I suppose it’s somewhat of a moot point since you would not hold to divine revelation, but the idea is at least consistent with Robert’s worldview.
Hi Bobby,
I would also ask you not to make assumptions as to what I would or would not believe.
Again, “old age” by biblical standards and modern day standards can be entirely different. As a woman “past” her childbearing years which would have been her teenage years, Elizabeth would have been considered “barren” but this does not mean she was incapable of conceiving. For some reason she did not conceive until much later in life, as women often do. Elizabeth may well have been in her middle to early 40’s and still considered “aged” and “barren”.
Robert – I think we’re getting off topic – first off all, you haven’t provided your Biblical response yet (unless you were taking a pass).
Secondly, is the point that you are making is that if a woman past menopause has sex, she is sinning unless she is hoping/praying that the Lord grants a miracle and gives her a baby?
I’m making this conclusion because I asked if a couple beyond child bearing years were sinning if they were having sex, and you seemed, in your reply, to state that folks are never beyond their child bearing years. Given that belief, it seems to me you are saying that as long as the couple if still hoping/praying for a child, you think it is not sinning. Please correct me if I’m mis-stating your position.
“I would also ask you not to make assumptions as to what I would or would not believe.”
I didn’t mean to- I know that you’re agnostic, so it follows that divine revelation would be impossible without some sort of deity.
Joan wrote in reply to my comment:
I was simply questioning why one biological function–pleasure–is categorically lesser than another, in response to your claim that it is the “lowest characteristic” of sex. I brought up mental, emotional (and, yes, spiritual, if you want to go there) bonding as an example of something that should, theoretically, be higher than the reproductive function of sex because it is unique to humans, and something which can be accomplished during non-procreative sex.
First of all: why do you insist that something be categorically “unique to humans” in order to be of higher value? Existence itself is common to all living things (even to plants, one-celled organisms, rocks, etc.), but do you consider it to be of lesser value than “bonding”, thereby? Existence is quite possible without “bonding” (in that sense), but bonding is quite impossible without existence, yes?
Secondly: human procreation brings forth (by the power of God, Who allows us to cooperate with Him) an immortal soul, whereas animal reproduction does not; thus, the mere act of perpetuating the physical species is not at issue, here; teh “reproduction” is of a completely different order.
My point is that, logically, there is a good argument to be made that those bonding functions are, in fact, the highest characteristic of sex because of their uniqueness to humans.
And I challenge your starting assumption: that uniqueness to humans necessarily makes something “higher”, per se. Angels do not reproduce sexually, and physical human bodies (united to immortal souls) are unique to humans (i.e. angels do not have them); and yet, angels are of a higher order of being than are we. I do agree that things which distinguish us from dumb animals (e.g. intellect, will, memory) certainly make us “higher” than they; but be careful that you don’t push that idea beyond its proper limits, since it’s not meant to be a universal maxim (i.e. “uniqueness = highest”). Beyond that, I already explained that the two purposes of human sexuality (the unification of the spouses, and the procreation of children) are of equal value… and we can know this by natural reason, and by Divine revelation.
[Paladin]
“Trying to unite (emotionally, spiritually, etc.) through sex, while deliberately sterilizing the act, wounds and divides, rather than unifies.”
[Joan]
And what I’m trying to understand here is how contraception “sterilizes” the act in a way that “natural family planning” does not, even though they both have the same purpose and function.
They do not have the same purpose and function. Natural Family Planning works in accord with our God-given design, and it is not limited merely to the spacing of childbirths; NFP is also effective in maximizing the chances of conception. Only a contraceptive mentality can look at NFP as “just another contraceptive method”, when it has far more purposes than merely delaying pregnancy. I’m reminded of the adage: “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I might as readily say, “To a person who intends to contracept, even the fullness of NFP looks merely like a condom without latex.” The flaw is in the view (the contraceptive mentality), not in the object (NFP) itself.
[Paladin]
“There really is a point beyond which one mush “fish, or cut bait”: accept the Church as true, or leave Her.”
[Joan]
There’s a distinct and material difference between accepting the fundamentals of the Church as true–which I do–and slavishly observing thousands of years worth of legalistic minutiae.
There certainly would be a difference between those two things. The task, then, is to distinguish properly between the two. How, exactly, do you (personally) do that? Do you go merely on personal taste (i.e. what you happen to like), or on something else?
The Church is a monolithic, hierarchical organization and like any such organization it is subject to pervasive bureaucratic inertia that is regressive and counter-productive to its most important goals.
Ahm… pardon me from interrupting what promises to be a full-throated diatribe, but: you still haven’t established how you came to these conclusions… or even what they mean, in your case. None of these descriptors (monolithic, hierarchical, bureaucratic, regressive, counter-productive) sound at all positive, so I assume you mean them to be criticisms; and yet, I can’t help but think your own personal world-view might be colouring your perceptions. I, for example, see the unity of the Church as glorious, as comforting, and as one of the four marks of Christ’s true Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic); you, apparently, do not. Can you explain?
The current topic of discussion here is, to my mind, a great example of this. Obviously, the Church recognizes the reality that many dedicated couples who want to have sex are not ready or capable of raising offspring, hence “natural family planning”, and yet accepting an artificial alternative to this, with exactly the same purpose, is somehow unacceptable. To ignore this discrepancy would be to reject the product of my own mental faculties, which is something no rational being should ever be asked or expected to do.
No one is asking you to ignore it. But is it asking too much for you to listen to Her reasons for acting thusly, and consider them (and not simply assume that the Church dismisses artificial contraception because of some imagined urge to “repress women, remain in the dark ages, be autocratic and domineering”, and the like? She has given reasons, you know… and I’ve seen no clear evidence that you’ve even read them, much less understood them properly; only then could you be in a position to criticize them, yes?
[Paladin]
“It is also, in the eyes of the Church to Whom you claim to belong, the only morally licit means available for the spacing of children, within marriage. I take it you view NFP with disdain? I see no logical reason why you would…”
[Joan]
I don’t view it with disdain. If couples find success using it, then more power to them. I just don’t see it as different, in any meaningful way, to the contraception the Church categorically rejects on the basis that it separates the conjugal act from reproduction, because the exclusive purpose of natural family planning is to do that very thing.
See above. Now that you’re aware of the fact that this (above claim of yours, i.e. that “NFP is only for preventing conception”) is not true at all, perhaps you could rethink your position?
In fact, if the statistics I’ve seen quoted here hold up in that NFP actually is more effective than condoms or birth control pills, then you could make a fair argument that a couple using a condom is actually more open to the possibility of pregnancy than a couple using natural family planning, and therefore less separated from one side of sex’s “ontological coin”.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that “resulting in a conception” is the main dynamic involved in calculating contraception’s sinfulness, and that is not so; but I’ll address that in a moment.
If a couple were using NFP for the sole purpose of avoiding children altogether (i.e not at all open to conception of new life, either temporarily or permanently), then that would be gravely sinful, yes… though even then, it would not entail the evils inherent in artificial contracpetion. You are aware, of course, that the effectiveness of NFP’s “success rate” in delaying childbirth is completely dependent on the couple’s ability to abstain from sex? The remarkable success rate of NFP in that regard (less than 1 “surprise conception” per 10,000 women years) is only gained by abstaining until the fourth or 5th day after clear signs of ovulation (i.e. “peak day”)–which requires self-sacrifice, compassion, communication, and selfless love between the spouses. Artificial contracpetion, on the other hand, encourages none of these; rather, it under-cuts them, and it encourages a sort of “I want sex now, and consequences be d**ned!” mentality. Any clear-thinking person can see the benefits in the former, and the drawbacks of the latter. So it’s not at all correct to say that a mere increase in the likelihood of a child is the issue, at all; the issue is the couple’s obedience to God, in and through their openness to life and their willingness to cooperate with His design (rather than trying to run rough-shod over it). Sins are acts of the will, not a game of this-or-that outcome.
Is there some kind of bright line rule about when NFP becomes a tool for immorality?
If you mean to ask, “Are there clear principles to follow, so as to use NFP licitly?”, then the answer is a resounding “yes“: use it without selfishness, and without lust. Do not reject life, but remain open to every act of sexual intercourse resulting in the beauty of a new child. Anything… ANYTHING… which leads someone to view a child as an “unwelcome burden, better off dead or nonexistent” is evil. It’s quite possible to be disappointed in the timing of a conception, and not sin thereby; but it must never translate into a hatred of the child, or a wish that the child could be “erased”. If the latter happens (and the contraceptive mentality encourages that mind-set, by definition), then one’s heart is very far from God.
I’m sure couples trying to avoid conception while at the same time staying within the moral boundaries of their faith would like to know exactly at what point it crosses the line from licit to illicit.
I’m sure many legalism-minded people would also like to know “exactly how much they can ogle a member of the opposite sex, without sin”, as well; but I’m afraid that’s too dependent on circumstances for me (or anyone, in general) to make a blanket pronouncement, aside from the maxim, “Do not lust; do not treat the other as an object for your sexual gratification.”
EGV,
First: I’ll assume, in the interests of charity, that you were being completely sincere in wanting an answer to your question for its own sake, and that you’re not simply making a brazen attempt to drive a wedge between Catholic and non-Catholic pro-lifers on this board. If I’m mistaken on this point, I’ll be ever so unhappy with you… and you’ll have a good deal of explaining to do to the entire board membership.
Second: since you’re a liberal Christian (correct me if I’m wrong, about you being a Christian: I honestly don’t remember your religious belief-system, apart from your religion-like zeal for anti-GOP causes), I find it odd that you’d change your tune so radically as to ask for a Biblical proof-text of anything. Would that honestly convince you of anything, at all? Are you going to go on-record as being a Christian who subscribes sincerely to Sola Scriptura? (If not, then can you see why I and others might suspect you of being dishonest, inflammatory, and wedge-driving?)
Third: you’re quite aware that I’m Catholic, and that I honour not only Scripture, but Sacred Tradition and the solemn teachings of the Church Magisterium as “three pillars” on which I may reliably receive Divine Revelation and its interpretation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 95). I will, therefore, not limit myself to Scripture alone… though I will add that it’s quite possible to lay out a case, from Scripture and from the Natural Law, against the use of artificial contraception. For you to ask for a “proof-text” is as pointless as asking for a “proof-text” for the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity (to which all Christians–including you, assumably–subscribe); the teaching is implicit in Scripture, not explicit. Is that quite clear?
As to your main question: “Does a Christian sin when using artificial contraception?”… you’re aware, I trust, of the requirements for a sin? To sin, an action must be wrong, the person must know (sufficiently) that it is wrong, and the person must choose freely (sufficiently) to do it anyway. If any of those points fails, then there is no sin charged to the soul (since sin is a free, informed choice to do evil; one cannot “sin by accident”). Given that, I hope you can see how it’d be impossible to answer your question in general, for all people alike. I can answer in generalities: if a given Christian is sufficiently aware of the evil of contraception, and if he/she chooses (with sufficient freedom) to do it anyway, then yes: that Christian has sinned. I can also say that the person is doing evil, no matter what his/her circumstances might be, and that no good (and much evil) can result from that evil being done. (God can certainly bring good from any evil, cf. Romans 8:28, but that’s despite the evil, not because of it.) It’s similar to saying that one could innocently drink dilute poison, day after day, without being charged with the sin of self-abuse or suicide; but the poison is still evil, and it will still do inevitable harm, if not stopped. Just so, in this situation, for the person who’s innocently unaware (or sincerely unconvinced, for whatever sincere reason) of the intrinsic evil of artificial contraception.
Does that clarify? (And were you genuinely serious in wanting an answer, as opposed to throwing out a merely divisive rhetorical flourish?)
(Sorry for the delay in writing, BTW; I was actually being dutiful and doing some yard-work, and helping my lovely wife…)
Side-note, EGV: did my replies to your first comment register with you, at all? I’d like to believe that you accepted the corrections of what were errors (esp. re: Catholic teaching), and that I don’t have to worry about you trotting them out again in the future, when pressed in verbal give-and-take…
Hi Bobby,
I apologize. I am very fond of you and did not intend to come across so abruptly. Of course that is a reasonable assumption on your part. I am not a disbeliever, maybe more a fencesitter.
Great posts as usual, Paladin.
No one is asking you to ignore it. But is it asking too much for you to listen to Her reasons for acting thusly, and consider them
And joan if you ever do decide to listen to and consider Her reasons, may I respectfully add that I hope you sincerely pray about it as well. This will be enough to bring the truth to you.
It never ceases to amaze me how a society as sexually free as ours gets so shocked over the sexual antics of celebrities. A politician or an athelete or a movie star commits adultery, and all the news shows are abuz about it. If there’s a child involved, they make a big deal out of that too, without concern about how it might embarrass the child. Nancy Grace went on about it for days when Tiger Woods got caught. We heard all the juicy details about Arnold, Arnold’s wife Maria, Arnold’s mistress, and her son. Now the details about John Edwards and his mistress and love child are all over the news. Of course, so many people are so shocked and standing in judgment about all this. But I wonder how many of the people standing in judgment are really sexually pure? How many of them really never had sex outside of marriage? Do they have love children out there somewhere? Or worse yet, babies killed by abortion to cover up the indescretion?
We aren’t helping anybody with the titilating response to other people’s sexual slip ups.
the baby is totally innocent
I have no problems with the rat, Edwards, being charged with anything and everything they can throw at him, although I understand that his wife was also complicit in the coverup (correct me if I am wrong)
Strangely enough I have a friend going through her “schwarzenegger moment” too
She has recently discovered that her husband of many years fathered a child about 20 years ago – early in their marriage.
I can’t imagine the humiliation and grief a woman suffers over this.
Of course these men both would have wanted abortions – abortion hides illicit sex. It’s that what it’s mostly about…..???
I just wish our society regarded fidelity more highly….
“First of all: why do you insist that something be categorically “unique to humans” in order to be of higher value?”
It seems to be the most obvious place to start when measuring the comparative value of different characteristics of actions that are performed by humans as well as non-human animals, and indeed it does seem to be your own point of departure in asserting that human procreation is inherently more valuable than animal procreation because of its ability to create an immortal soul (thus, a result unique to procreation as practiced by humans). For my part, I presented that qualification as a logical and self-evident example of criteria that would be used to distinguish the “higher” characteristics of some action from the “lower ones”, which was a concept originally introduced by you in stating that pleasure is the lowest characteristic of sexuality.
“And I challenge your starting assumption: that uniqueness to humans necessarily makes something “higher”, per se.”
I’m not sure exactly how you can challenge that assumption after stating that human procreation is more valuable than animal procreation because of its unique ability to bring forth an immortal soul.
“They do not have the same purpose and function. Natural Family Planning works in accord with our God-given design, and it is not limited merely to the spacing of childbirths; NFP is also effective in maximizing the chances of conception.”
Except when it’s not being used to maximize the chances of conception but instead to minimize them.
“Only a contraceptive mentality can look at NFP as “just another contraceptive method”, when it has far more purposes than merely delaying pregnancy.”
What is it that distinguishes “natural family planning” from plain old unprotected sex? Not only its primary feature, but its exclusive feature, is regulating conception. It has no other application. If a couple was not using it to prevent (“delay”) pregnancy (or to increase the likelihood of conception, but that’s not the capacity we’re discussing it in and I don’t see how it is at all relevant), then for what other reason?
“There certainly would be a difference between those two things. The task, then, is to distinguish properly between the two. How, exactly, do you (personally) do that? Do you go merely on personal taste (i.e. what you happen to like), or on something else?”
I use my God-given human reason and intellect. I do not accept that the purpose of Church doctrine is to supplant individual judgment as a product of individual character and wisdom with the whims of an insulated Church bureaucrat who is no more or less human than I am.
“None of these descriptors (monolithic, hierarchical, bureaucratic, regressive, counter-productive) sound at all positive, so I assume you mean them to be criticisms; and yet, I can’t help but think your own personal world-view might be colouring your perceptions. I, for example, see the unity of the Church as glorious, as comforting, and as one of the four marks of Christ’s true Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic); you, apparently, do not. Can you explain?”
First off, of course my world view colors my perceptions. Anyone who claims that their world view doesn’t do the same is simply being intellectually dishonest. I’m not sure what it is you want me to explain. The adjectives I used to describe the Church–monolithic, hierarchical, bureaucratic–aren’t necessarily criticisms, so much as they are defining qualities of any large organization; my point is simply that they can lead to the things that I mentioned that are negatives: regressive and counter-productive doctrinal positions… like, for example, a doctrine that says that contraception is immoral because it is intended to minimize the reproductive element of sex, but scheduling sexual intercourse around fertility cycles in order to avoid pregnancy is <em>totally different</em>.
“No one is asking you to ignore it. But is it asking too much for you to listen to Her reasons for acting thusly, and consider them (and not simply assume that the Church dismisses artificial contraception because of some imagined urge to “repress women, remain in the dark ages, be autocratic and domineering”, and the like?”
Obviously I have considered them and found them wanting, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Please note that I never claimed the Church’s position on this issue is the result of a desire to repress women and remain in the dark ages. As I’ve made clear, I consider it the result of a bureaucracy that is slow to adapt to changing circumstances. I believe the Church will come around on the matter of artificial contraception just as it came around on heliocentrism.
“The remarkable success rate of NFP in that regard (less than 1 “surprise conception” per 10,000 women years) is only gained by abstaining until the fourth or 5th day after clear signs of ovulation (i.e. “peak day”)–which requires self-sacrifice, compassion, communication, and selfless love between the spouses.”
Call me crazy, but I don’t think waiting four or five days for (vaginal, penetrative) sex is exactly a huge sacrifice. And what if a couple using artificial contraception also decided to abstain for four or five days at a time in order to demonstrate their self-sacrifice, compassion, communication, and selfless love towards each other?
” Artificial contracpetion, on the other hand, encourages none of these; rather, it under-cuts them, and it encourages a sort of “I want sex now, and consequences be d**ned!” mentality. ”
There is nothing categorically different between the mentality that leads to sex using contraceptives in order to minimize the risk of pregnancy and the mentality that leads to sex using natural family planning techniques in order to minimize the risk of pregnancy. In both cases, the couple wants something (sex) without something else (pregnancy), and uses a method of bringing about this situation.
“Sins are acts of the will, not a game of this-or-that outcome.”
Right, and a couple that is timing intercourse in order to minimize the possibility of pregnancy is functionally operating with the same exact will that a couple using a condom or birth control pill is using.
“Anything… ANYTHING… which leads someone to view a child as an “unwelcome burden, better off dead or nonexistent” is evil.”
But there is nothing incumbent upon the usage of contraception that leads to this viewpoint, and certainly not any more than there is for avoiding pregnancy with natural family planning. In both cases, the prospects of pregnancy are very much unwelcome, otherwise why would they be avoiding pregnancy?
No harm done, Mary :) Take care.
“Call me crazy, but I don’t think waiting four or five days for (vaginal, penetrative) sex is exactly a huge sacrifice. And what if a couple using artificial contraception also decided to abstain for four or five days at a time in order to demonstrate their self-sacrifice, compassion, communication, and selfless love towards each other?”
Joan, a couple using contraception does not have the same life viewpoint as a couple using NFP. The latter couple is open to the possibility of a child. What you are suggesting is not the normative behavior of a contracepting couple with regard to sexuality. Often these couples view sex in a purely recreational manner. The purpose of contraception is usually to make one or both partners sexually available all the time.
Jill:
“Male pigs support abortion. What does that say about abortion?”
Well, in addition to the male pigs that support it, the female swine herd at NOW and NARAL fill the rest of the sty. That tells me that abortion is hog heaven (Probably not at all fair to actual pigs).
“Joan, a couple using contraception does not have the same life viewpoint as a couple using NFP. The latter couple is open to the possibility of a child.”
If a couple is using contraception with the full knowledge that it can fail, and they are willing to accept the responsibilities of such a failure, then what is the practical difference?
Joan,then why contracept?
Joan the fact is that contracepting doesn’t work that way. Couples don’t contracept with the mentality of accepting failure (reading baby). The point of contraception is to prevent the baby and to have recreational sex. They don’t have the mindset of acceptance of the possibility of a baby in their lives. This is why abortion must follow contraception because the mindset now defaults to birth control (read prevention of a birth of a live baby).
Just got done running some errands. Mary, from my perspective, I was not making any assumptions on your belief. From my understanding of agnosticism, an agnostic has chosen to not put their faith in any particular belief; not in any God nor no-God. In a way, agnostics are really the only ones who could truly claim to be non-religious as they have yet chosen to put their faith in anything specific. To accept miracles or such requires belief in some deity. This is what I was going on in my mind. Any mistake of mine would be to have a varied concept of agnosticism from yours, and I apologize.
Ex-GOP, I was not aware I was being asked for a particular verse. Reading back, I see this “So the question I posed to Paladin – let me know if you’d like” which I took to be directed to Paladin. Either way, Paladin has made further posts. It is not sinful for the elderly to partake in the marital as long as they remain open to new life that God may choose to provide in His providence. NFP is not sinful as long as the purpose of it being used is to not be deliberately against God’s will, being fully open to the consequences of His will. NFP utilizes the natural monthly cycles that God himself created as part of the natural human biology. NFP being used simply as just another alternative within the same mindset of artificial contraception, is sinful however.
With artificial contraception, the base mindset is to deliberately go against the will of God. Instead of using the natural cycles that God provided during times of dire need while still being completely open and hopeful to what happens, artificial contraception introduces artificial materials for the direct purpose of going against God’s will by interfering with the natural course of the marital act. This why many couple are finding that contraception is hurting their marriages. Really, using condoms prevents the marital act from even taking place. It is pretty much just the couple masturbating each other with a barrier to actual union.
This is my last post. I find trying to keep up with the thread requiring to much time, especially when preparations for my dad’s birthday taking place. God bless all of you!
Joan says:
I was simply questioning why one biological function–pleasure–is categorically lesser than another, in response to your claim that it is the “lowest characteristic” of sex. I brought up mental, emotional (and, yes, spiritual, if you want to go there) bonding as an example of something that should, theoretically, be higher than the reproductive function of sex because it is unique to humans, and something which can be accomplished during non-procreative sex.
Right, Joan. Your pleasure, Your fulfillment, Your bonding, Your spirituality are all higher goods and needs than those of a baby who might be conceived in the middle of your adolescent expression of an adult behavior.
Adult sex begins with the understanding that a human being may result from all of that bonding and spirituality.
Adult sex begins with the understanding that the new life that issues from that bonding and spirituality has moral claims on the parents.
Adult sex produces spiritual growth, which in turn envelops the child and nurtures it.
You’ve never had adult sex, Joan. I know you haven’t, because your posts reveal a woman who has none of the prerequisites for adult sex.
You begin with the position that any baby that comes between you and your Disneyland sex is going to incur capital punishment for making such an infringement on your good times.
You begin by reserving murder as an option.
That’s not love, or bonding, or spirituality, or growth.
That’s dark and sinister. That’s anti-love.
That’s evil.
And you have spent hundreds of hours here defending that evil.
People using NFP are supposed to be considering – month by month – about their willingness to be open to life, open to God’s plan. A couple using NFP for purely contraceptive reasons is not using it for its purpose. NFP is available to help couples get closer, emotionally; to help couples communicate more; to help men and women understand her body, her cycles throughout all of their life, including when her cycles change. NFP is very good at helping couples detect problems when they arise.
In my case, we detected a problem, went to the doctor and found pre-cancerous cells on my cervix. Due to my mother’s use of artificial hormones (doctor prescribed) while pregnant with me, that changed my cell structure and other structures in my reproductive system. We are known as DES daughters – and many had early, unheard-of cancer of the cervix early, some can not conceive, others have incompetent cervix’s …. we frankly do not know what will happen to our population when we are in menopause.
NFP is also so accurate, that many couples use the method to conceive children, which is what we did with our second daughter.
NFP is an all-natural way to space children – it is not meant to be used to forever postpone children. Every month a couple must have a very good reason to postpone being open to life. Couples are supposed to prayerfully approach intimacy, and work together with God to determine what is needed.
But I imagine that most people’s approach to sexual intimacy is much different, as it was for me before I had followed my husband’s spiritual lead. Our intimacy is much better now – and it was great then. Being open, prayerful and completely giving make intimacy wonderful.
But of course, true intimacy is within a marriage, where a total gift of self means much more than sex. But sometimes, it takes a spiritual awakening to reveal the amazing possibilities.
Hi Joan.
“If a couple is using contraception with the full knowledge that it can fail, and they are willing to accept the responsibilities of such a failure, then what is the practical difference?”
The difference is the same difference between the actions of waiting for Grandma to die and attempting to kill Grandma, accepting full well that if you fail then it’s no biggie; that is, it is the fact that you still engaged in an action which attempted to thwart something;s final cause. I am certainly not “comparing contraception with murder” but I am attempting to show that engaging in an evil action knowing full well that the purpose of said action may fail does not do anything to mitigate the fact that the action was evil nonetheless. The problem with contraception is not in the outcome (avoiding pregnancy) but in the MEANS of avoiding pregnancy which deliberately thwarts the final cause of the marital act, or intends to thwart it. With NFP no such thwarting takes place because no act takes place.
Paladin:
I have to say I am in awe. If you are not a professor in a college or, better yet, a seminary then you may want to consider a career change.
Paladin –
Yes – 100% sincere in this. I’m not trying to put a wedge – Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians – all allow for contraception, and I’ve not seen the belief (at least in the strength I see it) outside of the Catholic church.
I would not consider myself a liberal Christian. I consider myself a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t believe that Christ is a Republican (nor a Democrat for that matter…). I simply don’t believe the GOP is sincere in it’s pro-life efforts, and as you folks (right wingers) believe in things like death panels, I believe that Republicans in charge could and would mean seniors and the poor without the care and services they need – so not a liberal Christian, just not willing to put those things aside.
I’m just not a crazy overt Christian on this board, and haven’t been in debates where I believe somebody is claiming a Christian position as a universal fact that I don’t agree with. I believe Biblically that abortion is wrong – again, I just don’t vote GOP, and don’t agree with a lot of the methods that folks on this board subscribe to. Don’t mistake that though for not being a believer. Sure, I might confront people and their views, but if I’m a “wedge driving” person on this board…well, a LOT of people have that same guilty charge.
On your third point. I’m not Catholic. I believe in the Bible, and I believe adding anything to it is sinful. I do agree with your point that some teaching is implicit. I also believe that if people are stretching something that is not explicit, and stating that it is a matter of salvation – I believe that can be dangerous. The Bible is clear on lots of things, and those things should be abided by. If somebody needs to make a long, lengthy case about something, it’s going to be hard for me to say that Christ looks at that item as being necessary for salvation.
The last paragraph I agree with – if somebody knows something is wrong, yet does it anyway, they are sinning.
So,
I’ll make it simple. Christian couple doesn’t want kids yet and they used condoms. Are they sinning?
My comment didn’t post. Here’s what I wrote:
I’ll make it simple. Christian couple doesn’t want kids yet and they used condoms. Are they sinning?
Yes, although because many Christian denominations eschewed two thousand years of teaching and defected from it in the 1960’s to allow birth control to please man and not God (and later homosexuality, divorce, abortion etc), their culpability is minimal. They simply don’t know any better. They do, though, sadly cheat themselves out of countless blessings by their choice. That does make me very sad.
Jacqueline -
I have my Bible here…where is it written? Make the Biblical case for me.
Also, is it sinning, in your viewpoint, if the person isn’t even aware they are? From my readings of the New Testament, I’ve never seen that sort of “entrapment” God at play.
Go ahead and get the Weekly World News, the National Enquirer, etc. They are hilarious if sometimes slightly mistaken.
The Batboy lives!
EGV,
I’m taking you up on your challenge to Jacqueline. I’m glad you have your bible handy, because you’re going to need it. .
The argument that you requested has been made in several documents, beginning with Humanae Vitae:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
These are exceptionally well footnoted with regard to scripture, and with regard to preceding documents which are themselves rooted deeply in scripture. I have no doubt about your sincerity, and have every expectation that you will approach the material you requested with a sincere and open mind and heart.
EX-GOP, do you not know what the word culpability means? Look it up and then we’ll talk. I don’t have time to repeat myself because you don’t understand the words I use.
EGV:
Your question:
I’ll make it simple. Christian couple doesn’t want kids yet and they used condoms. Are they sinning?”
The short answer is “yes”.
The medium answer is that they are objectively guilty of sin, as outlined in Humanae Vitae, above. The amount of subjective guilt imputed depends upon their level of ignorance of God’s design for His creation, and on their willingness to investigate the issue.
Until 1930, all of Christendom was united in the condemnation of birth control. Then, at the Lambeth conference of 1930, the Anglicans were the first to break with the rest of us. Most other Christian denominations followed suit afterward. Was their centuries-old understanding of scripture that made them abhor contraception flawed? Or for all of those centuries, were they all adding something to scripture that was not there?
Or perhaps hedonism crept in?
In any event, the Catholic Church in the mid-1960’s was left championing the scriptural imperatives that the Protestants abandoned. Hence, Humanae Vitae.
Greater than the sin of contraception is stopping one’s ears to the truth of scripture for no other reason than it’s Catholics who are quoting the scriptures.
“Greater than the sin of contraception is stopping one’s ears to the truth of scripture for no other reason than it’s Catholics who are quoting the scriptures.”
That would make a bit more sense if I saw anyone ACTUALLY QUOTING SCRIPTURES.
I’ll read through the Vatican statement tomorrow – but again, as I’ve said before already…in fact, I’ll quote myself: “The Bible is clear on lots of things, and those things should be abided by. If somebody needs to make a long, lengthy case about something, it’s going to be hard for me to say that Christ looks at that item as being necessary for salvation.”
So looking forward to the 10,000 word explanation…
Jacqueline
Thanks for the kind words – have a good night
Hi Robert 8:45PM
No apology is needed, though I appreciate it. I’m afraid I violated my long standing rule to never get into religious discussions. Thank you for your perspective.
Seriously.
I have been following this blog for a couple months. To clarify, I am not a Christian but I am pro-life. We need to prevent the murder of unborn babies.
But this post is the most hubris-ridden, sanctimonious piece of junk I have ever read.
When will you people stop trying to force your personal morality on others? WHO CARES ABOUT THESE PEOPLE’S LIVES? Shouldn’t you simply be glad that these women did not abort their children, and leave it at that? How is it your business who has sex with who? Don’t get me wrong, I always hope a wronged spouse takes the cheater to the cleaners during the divorce, but it isn’t my business.
And with all the whining over whether birth control is a sin or not, again I ask how is it your business? If couples use contraception it is between them and whatever god they believe in. Not everyone follows your religious beliefs; stop trying to force your opinions on others. I am married, we use contraception because we have two children and are too poor for another. We are not sinning, and it is NO ONE ELSE’S BUSINESS! Why don’t you concentrate on protecting unborn babies, and leave consenting adults alone? Grow up.
“The Bible is clear on lots of things, and those things should be abided by. If somebody needs to make a long, lengthy case about something, it’s going to be hard for me to say that Christ looks at that item as being necessary for salvation.”
With an exception made for the Bible itself? 181,253 words if just considering the New Testament.
Jack, but you are trying to force your pro-life moral “sanctimonious trash” on others.
Because it actually kills a baby. It is not something that happens between two adults. I don’t care if people smoke, as long as a child isn’t locked in the room with them. I don’t care if people drink, as long as a child is not being neglected. I don’t care if someone has unwed sex, unless it is rape or coercion or nonconsentual or involving a minor. You have no business trying to force adults to follow your moral code, when it does not involve someone else being harmed.
Murder is a point of morality. Not all believe in the same moral code as you. “You have no business trying to force adults to follow your moral code.”
Don’t be deliberately obtuse. You are (I assume) smart enough to see a difference between actions that harm someone other than yourself (drunk driving as an example) and actions that are only harmful to you (some people believe masturbation is harmful, but it hurts no one but the doer). The society should legislate actions which harm others (abortion, drunk driving, rape, murder). Society has no business legislating what goes on in people’s personal lives (such as masturbation, consenting sex, drinking alcohol). I don’t believe you are stupid, so don’t pretend you don’t see the difference.
“The society should legislate actions which harm others (abortion, drunk driving, rape, murder)”
On what basis? This is a statement of morality itself that others may not agree with. The idea that it is wrong to hurt others. Being that there is no God, there is no such thing as wrong and right. Things come and go, being the way of the universe.
Jack,
I sincerely hope that Mrs. Borsch never places you in the position of having to defend your words from the perspective of the cuckolded husband.
It may be consenting behavior, but the issue here begins with whether or not people are free to consent to adultery. The stability of communities of humans (church, business, civic, social, etc..) is upended by people freely prescinding from their vows. That’s why society requires vows in marriage, in court, upon entering military and other uniformed services, in ordinations of clergy…
This blog is written and staffed by people whose religious perspective informs their pro-life perspective. I suggest that you demonstrate some of that grown-up behavior you find so prescriptive and respect OUR choices, and OUR world-view.
“You have no business trying to force adults to follow your moral code, when it does not involve someone else being harmed.”
So then Mrs. Borsch having an affair would harm nobody, including you? How about your two children? How about your respective families? You simply do not understand marriage, even at a secular level. I suggest that you take some of that medicine you prescribed for all of us here. Not killing babies is NOT the highest ethical plane on which to live. It’s actually the most basic. We’re beyond you.
Come join us.
Mary
And did you notice how it was not suggested by the left that Hilary leave him. And the excuse when questioned why most women were told to leave their spouses in such cases but not Hilary was because they said she had too much invested in their marriage. Which of course I think is a very good argument but why not give everyone that option and not just some people.
Joan
I think your post is very accurate also. It’s way past time men were held to the same standard as women. I think when that happens the world will be better off for it.
I understand my marriage just fine, thanks. My wife and I have have mutually agreed to raise our children, take care of each other, remain faithful, and love each other (including pleasuring each other sexually).
The state does not get to stipulate what we do in the privacy of our home, even if it was to be repugnant to some. If we engages in S&M (which we DO NOT, it is simply an example), it is no one’s business but hers and mine. If my wife cheated on me, it would be between me and her, not the state. I do not approve of cheating, but I am not going to legislate people’s sex lives.
Remember that lovely first ammendment, which allows you to be a christian and me to be an agnostic/secularist without fear of being persecuted for our beliefs? It seems to me that the people on this board would just love a theocracy, where the state should sanction and dictate what we can do in our own homes based on someone’s morality. The only workable government is one that protects the interests of the people while allowing them to make their own decisions. If my wife had an affair, it would emotionally hurt me, but is not a prosecutable offense. If she yells at me, that would also hurt. Still not prosecutable. If she were to physically attack someone, that is a crime against someone’s body and she would need to be prosecuted.
Let me put it this way. Say that you can prescribe morality for the populace according to your religious beliefs. Say the entire government is structured on Protestant morality. Most Protestants I know consider confession to be unbiblical. Would you approve of legislating that confession is illegal, because it is against Protestant doctrine? Of course not! That is abridging people’s freedom, abhorrent as the practice of confession is to some. The only government that works is one that protects but does not limit personal freedom.
Jack, I agree with what you are saying BUT no one here is saying adultery should be legislated or punished in the courts. We are looking at this from a moral standpoint not a political/judicial one. So therefore your whole reason for being upset with us doesn’t even exist. We are looking at how sexual immorality ties into the pro-life/pro-choice debate. I don’t see one person here advocating laws dictating what you and your wife do with each other or other people in your bedroom.
Jack,
The government actually DOES regulate sexual morality and punishes adultery in many states. Adulterers can be taken to the cleaners in divorce court. In your hostility to faith, you miss the forest for the trees.
I’m not entering into an apologetics derailment over secularism. I’ll suffice it to say that if your wife cheated on you, it would do more than emotionally hurt you. More often than not, it shatters lives and families irreparably.
You came on this thread chiding Christians for being Christians, for believing as Christians do. In so doing, you have presented yourself as an imperious oaf who knows better than we do. Kelsey Hazard has an organization called Secular Pro-Life, that might be suited to your temperament. I must say, though, that Kelsey is not narrow-minded and provincial in her thinking and relations with religious pro-lifers.
Also, before laying down such a challenge to me as legislating the Sacrament of Confession, do some of that growing up you asked us to do.
Then learn the difference between Dogma, Doctrine, Morality, and Ascetics.
Then do more growing up.
Then you will probably realize how utterly inane your challenge was, how ignorant you were, and how enlightened those Protestants and Catholics were all along.
Mary
Concerning your 6:00 p.m. post I think a good way to approximate the age of Sarah and Abraham is to look at a map and look at the distance they traveled even though you might not be able to approximate what age they were you could probably approximate what age they weren’t.
“I think that the right should try to make “sanctity of marriage” legislation more comprehensive, and when somebody has an affair, fine them or throw them in prison.”
These and other comments seem to support that people here wish to legislate sexual morality.
“The government actually DOES regulate sexual morality and punishes adultery in many states. Adulterers can be taken to the cleaners in divorce court. In your hostility to faith, you miss the forest for the trees.”
People in no-fault divorces can be taken to the cleaners too, especially men. Irreconcilable differences, emotional abuse, child custody issues, alimony, and other things that come up during divorce.
“Then you will probably realize how utterly inane your challenge was, how ignorant you were, and how enlightened those Protestants and Catholics were all along.”
Yes, those enlightened people who attempted to block my sister from adopting my eight-year-old disabled niece, simply because my sister is a single lesbian woman. Their moral principles would have preferred that the precious child (whom no straight christian couples wanted to adopt, hypocrisy much?) had stayed in substandard foster care where she was not being properly taken care of. One woman even said that my niece should be returned to her neglectful crack-head mother and sexually abusive father rather than to be raised by my successful, loving, financially stable sister. Simply because she is a lesbian. That’s where this imposition of morality on others gets you.
I think I will check out this other pro-life site. I am not going to sit and argue with people who base their opinions on a book that justifies slavery, genocide, and murder in the name of god. Which is funny, I don’t hear anyone fighting for these morals! But you will call a married couple sinful for using condoms. That’s simply ridiculous and untenable. You would condemn my wife and me for taking steps to prevent us from having a child we cannot take care of, but prevent my sister from adopting a disabled child because of her sexual orientation. It’s ridiculous.
The only person condemning anyone here is you, Jack. Perhaps your conscience (the law of God that is written on every human heart) is talking to you. Perhaps you should listen.
Hey Jack -
Let me clarify my statement here that you quoted.
I think that the the “sanctity of marriage” crowd is bunk…not that marriage is not special – but I hate that out of one side of their mouth, the right wing says that their marriages are under threat because of the homosexual community, and out of the other side of their mouth, people are committing affairs.
So tongue in cheek, I say hey, if you want to limit marriage, then actually puts some meat behind it – put some guidelines and live by it.
Personally, i don’t believe marriage should be a legal distinction – I think it should be a distinction from the Church, and legally, people should designate somebody (anybody) for things like medical decisions.
So sorry for the confusion.
Ps – I do think though people on this board would outlaw the pill – and who knows what other types of contraception.
Gerard Nadal says: “The only person condemning anyone here is you, Jack.”
Uh-huh. There’s no condemnation in your screed against Joan: “That’s dark and sinister. That’s anti-love. That’s evil. And you have spent hundreds of hours here defending that evil.”
Right.
Well, in addition to the male pigs that support it, the female swine herd at NOW and NARAL fill the rest of the sty. That tells me that abortion is hog heaven.
Some pretty odious people defend the Catholic church, but that shouldn’t be considered a reflection on the church itself. Same deal with abortion.
Why should people who want to outlaw abortion be expected to have ANY response to “baby daddy” scandals? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Throughout human history, conceptions have occurred under all kinds of circumstances and babies have been born under all kinds of circumstances.
Females have sought and obtained abortions under all kinds of circumstances.
Why should people with a particular stance on abortion be expected to respond to scandals about out of wedlock babies with married fathers?
Ex-Gop,
Thanks for explaining. From the threads I have read, it seems as a lot of people here WOULD want birth control outlawed. I wonder if they would financially support my resulting children? Nah, they would probably cut programs for needy families as they outlaw the way to avoid having a needy family!
Gerard,
That is an incredibly rich statement. Have you read any of the comments here, or on other threads? This is an incredibly condemning group. There are a couple people who don’t make me want to hurl because of their cruelty, but on the whole this is a pretty rude group. It certainly doesn’t make me think that Christianity makes you a better person, or has any truth value. There is a real lack of compassion and caring here.
Jack,
You equate being compassionate with being “nice”. Compassion often requires that hard truths be spoken. Speaking hard truth is not considered “nice/compassionate” by many. Also, this isn’t a high school debate team. This is a war for the lives of millions who will be torn apart, literally, in their mother’s wombs.
Wars are not “nice”.
You obviously haven’t been here long, and speak prematurely. There is a person here who had an abortion, and posted angrily (to put it mildly) and debated us in scalding exchanges. She is now pregnant and being pressured from all sides in her life to abort. The moderators here have rallied to her side in private exchanges ad have produced material support as well as emotional support as well.
The assiduous defense of life, encountering the proponents of abortion head-on, the support, love and forgiveness of past adversarial exchanges are all quintessentially Christian. I suggest you read Saint Paul. You are ignorant of Christianity, and in your ignorance you make ignorant and rather judgmental statements of your own, all in the name of being “nice”.
We are not constrained or convicted by the standards that arise from your ignorance.
You are.
EGV,
You wrote,
I believe in the Bible, and I believe adding anything to it is sinful.
I see. I’ll come back to this important point, in a moment.
I do agree with your point that some teaching is implicit.
Very well.
I also believe that if people are stretching something that is not explicit, and stating that it is a matter of salvation – I believe that can be dangerous.
That’s fairly vague; and it leaves open the possibility that there are NO instances where you’d accept implicit Biblical teaching (i.e. shying away from anything that you think “might be dangerous”, which might reduce itself to shying away from anything which doesn’t recommend itself to your personal tastes… a very different, and lesser, thing). Are there any such things that, despite their apparent “stretch”, you DO regard as matters of salvation? For example: the Bible clearly states that anyone who strikes mother or father shall be put to death (cf. Exodus 21:15); but in the case of a son or daughter of a parent who’s physically attacking him/her (or worse, physically attacking his or her spouse or children), would you prohibit, on pain of death, the person from using physical force against his parent(s)? If not, then I’d be interested in your lengthy case by which you’d excuse yourself from a crystal-clear Biblical mandate.
(Do you see the problem, now, with isolated, out-of-context “proof-texts”… and with demanding “clear and unambiguous” Biblical references for this-or-that? Many truths of the Faith cannot be found by a mere “word search” of the Biblical text, but they instead require interpretation and [perhaps long and involved] logical deductions; you know that, right?)
The Bible is clear on lots of things, and those things should be abided by.
That is true… though I admit to being curious about what things you consider to be in this category; I suspect they differ from my own “list”…
If somebody needs to make a long, lengthy case about something, it’s going to be hard for me to say that Christ looks at that item as being necessary for salvation.
You may need to explain why you think that. I see nowhere in Scripture that lays down such a requirement as you introduce, here.
The last paragraph I agree with – if somebody knows something is wrong, yet does it anyway, they are sinning.
I’d add two qualifiers: that the knowledge of the evil be “sufficient” (it need not be perfect), and that their choice to do the evil anyway is “sufficiently free” (i.e. not coerced, brainwashed, etc.).
I’ll make it simple. Christian couple doesn’t want kids yet and they used condoms. Are they sinning?
(??) You ask this of me, after writing the sentence immediately before this one (re: if somebody knows something is wrong, etc.)? Surely you see (even if you didn’t read my previous answer, which answered this thoroughly) that the answer is, “It depends?” For example: does the Christian couple in question know that artificial contraception is wrong? Are they sufficiently convinced of its wrongness, or at least in a state of sufficient doubt about its moral acceptability? Are they doing so freely (and not being pressured by one spouse or another, or by external sources)? You haven’t given me nearly enough information to answer your question… and I thought I made that quite clear, in my last message to you. I’d really advise against reducing all concepts to “sound bytes”, like that… especially if you ignore (perhaps unintentionally) the very points on which the answer depends!
Now… my turn. If you’ll forgive me asking you two quick questions, first…
1) Where, exactly, do you find the Bible explicitly and unequivocally condemning abortion? I see a prohibition against murder, yes… but abortion? Wouldn’t that be one of those cases of yours in which “long, drawn-out explanations” would be needed to try to prove the point? (Mind you, I do think that abortion is an inhuman crime, and that the Bible clearly, though implicitly, makes that plain… but you’ll find a great many self-proclaimed “pro-choice Christians” are sadly deluded into thinking that there is no Bible-based prohibition against abortion, whatsoever. So… how would you convince them with clear, unambiguous Bible references about the undeniable personhood of the unborn child (a requirement for their protection by the 5th Commandment), without any of that long, drawn-out, tedious “theology” stuff? Chapter and verse, please…
2) You say that you “believe in the Bible, and […] adding anything to it is sinful”. Do you consider “interpretation” to be “adding to Scripture?” If you do, then I’m not sure how you could ever use the vast majority of the Scriptures, which sometimes require a great deal of proper interpretation (and examination of the context, cultural idiom, purpose of the particular Book, etc.). I think, for example of the Song of Songs, 1:15: “How beautiful you are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes are doves.” (NIV) Please tell me that you don’t think that the eyeballs of Solomon’s beloved were replaced by miniature, flapping, cooing doves…? The image is positively grotesque! Surely you see that this is meant to be poetry, and not to be taken as literally as we should take, for example, the account of the beheading of St. John the Baptist? If interpretation falls under your personal prohibition against “adding to Scripture”, then I’m afraid this conversation will go nowhere (and I fear for your future Scriptural endeavours)…
3) Re: question #2: can you tell me where, in the Bible, it requires this? I see a reference in Revelation 22:18-19 which forbids anyone from adding or subtracting from the prophecy contained in that book (i.e. the Book of Revelation), but I see no such prohibition for the entire Canon of Scriptures, as a whole. That sort of prohibition, I think, would require interpretation in order to claim, yes?
Don’t mistake me: I, also, do not believe that we are free to insert or delete anything from the Biblical text. But I don’t see your basis for believing that (aside from personal taste, and personal esteem for the Scriptures). If you insist on a “Sola Scriptura” (“if it isn’t clearly in the Bible, then don’t trust it”) approach, would it be asking too much to ask you where you find such a requirement clearly in Scripture?
You shouldn’t assume I know nothing about Christianity. I was raised very religiously by my very abusive parents. I know full well what the more fundamentalist sects of Christianity believe. My parents did not believe in birth control. They had six children, of which I am the youngest. We had barely enough to eat with my father’s factory job, because of course my mother was not allowed to work outside of the home. They also disowned my sister for being homosexual, and took the “spare the rod, spoil the child” idea all the way to beating me into a week long hospital stay when I was eight, all because I was throwing a fit because I was hungry. My father was also abusive in much more depraved ways to me and my brother (before you start, I know that Christians condemn sexual abuse, I bring this up to show that Christianity doesn’t translate into goodness automatically). When I asked my Sunday School teacher for help with my abusive home life, including the sexual abuse, she told me to honor my parents. I got the same response from my youth group leader when I was older.
I do not wish to be like my parents. I am able to provide and treat my two children with love and caring like a father should. I would not be able to support another child. How in the world is it more compassionate to deny that birth control that makes it possible for my wife and I to not have another child that we would not be able to feed or provide for? Where are all of you when needy families are barely able to make ends meet? You really want to end abortion? Start supporting people who choose life but cannot afford the children they let live. I have yet to see a coherent argument for why it is selfless and Christian to have children you cannot afford, while using birth control to protect the interests of the children you already have is immoral and wrong.
Good heavens… I delay a day (I typed the reply to you in Notepad, EGV, this morning, and I hadn’t logged on until now), and behold! the flame-thrower brigade!
May I make a humble suggestion to Jack, Lisa, and others who have charged in, full of spit and vinegar? If you’re so repulsed by what you take to be coarse interchanges, “condemning” attitudes, and hostility, would it be asking too much for you to live up to your own standard? Be models of civility, self-restraint and equanimity, as you share your concerns; otherwise, you’ll lead people to conclude that you believe in such standards “for thee, but not for me”… which is virtually the definition of hypocrisy.
Care to try again, with a bit less vitriol? Productive discussion is good; but life is too short to trade screaming-matches with trolls (of any variety).
Re: Jack, especially: no one… I repeat, NO ONE, on this board will fail to grieve for you, in the abuse you suffered. Every last person (except for the occasional troll, and I’d urge you to ignore them, anyway) wishes the best for you, and wishes that you’d never experienced the torments you experienced. You’re also quite right: your father’s abuse (and your Sunday School teacher’s criminal [perhaps literally!] negligence) did not come from Christianity, per se; they are abuses of Christianity, and they are crimes… just as they are crimes when atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc., do the same to their children. I’m not sure if your current level of anger and fury is letting you see that, right now… but it is true.
Would you care to discuss the principles you mention? We can do that… but if you’re looking to blame the Christians on this board because they happen, in some incidental ways, to remind you of your father, et al., then we really won’t be able to help you at all, or to discuss anything productively with you at all.
What do you say?
Fine, less vitriol.
I simply want to know why it is so immoral for my wife and I to use birth control, knowing full well we cannot afford another child. Isn’t it far more damaging for us to have another child, putting us into further debt and in the position of not even being able to feed and clothe this new child as well as our two already existing children?
And why was it moral for my parents to avoid birth control and have six children, that they took horrible care of and abused, but immoral for my wife and I to limit our family size to what we are emotionally and financially prepared to handle?
And I am sorry. I find it hard to divorce Christianity from the horrible experiences of my childhood. And it galls me to still today see the same church praising my parents for having a large family when the church elders know full well how they treated my siblings and I. I tend to fly off the handle at Christians in general, especially when I percieve that kind of attitude (that big god-given families are wonderful, no matter how prepared you are). I do not mean to paint everyone with the same brush. I would like to believe everyone here would protect abused children, not just tell them to suck it up because god wants you to honor your parents.
P.S. to Jerry: :) Thanks! You should have seen me on Friday, after giving and grating final exams! You probably wouldn’t have been as impressed; I felt like a babbling, brain-burned cretin whose highest verbiage was probably something like, “Duh… eat food, make red marks on papers, bang head on keyboard, collapse…”
Jack,
I just want to say that I am sorry for what you went through. That was not okay. It’s not okay to abuse or neglect any children, whether you have a big family or a small one. I don’t blame family size at all, being from a small family and friends with many large ones. People unfit and abusive shouldn’t have ANY children, let alone 6, but it would have been equally wrong had it only been you that was abused.
The bottom line is that I am sorry for what you endured. I am very glad you are the parent your children deserve, like you deserved a good parent. It’s not okay that you were denied what you should have had and endured what you endured.
Jack wrote:
Fine, less vitriol.
:) Appreciated.
I simply want to know why it is so immoral for my wife and I to use birth control, knowing full well we cannot afford another child.
No one is saying that, in cases (such as yours, apparently) where there is serious reason to postpone pregnancy, you cannot use “birth control”, so long as the term is rightly understood. If you have serious reason to avoid pregnancy for the time being, you and your wife are free to abstain from sexual intercourse during the fertile periods of your wife’s cycle (Natural Family Planning [NFP] is the name for the science by which such times can usually be determined very accurately), and use those times to replace orgasm with the manifold other ways that you can show your love for one another (e.g. cuddling, helping with chores, going out on non-sexual dates like you used to do, talking to each other about hopes and dreams, etc.). Believe it or not, abstaining from sexual intercourse for select portions of your wife’s cycle won’t kill you; if it’s done cooperatively and with love, it can be a water-shed moment which can deepen your marriage immeasurably! Our main concern is that you do not go further, and reject children (even future children in your own marriage) as “forever forbidden and out of the question”–i.e. slamming shut your openness to life, in general… and that you do not use means (i.e. artificial contraceptives) which are designed to fragment the very unity that your marriage seeks to nurture, preserve and grow.
Isn’t it far more damaging for us to have another child, putting us into further debt and in the position of not even being able to feed and clothe this new child as well as our two already existing children?
Again: if you’ve come to the reasoned, non-panicked conclusion that it’d be best to delay pregnancy, then fill the “fertile times” with spiritually and emotionally “fertile” interactions with each other, and wait for sex until the infertile times. Any competent NFP teacher can train you in the process… and it frees you from the mess and inconvenience of condoms, the toxic and body-altering effects of hormonal contraception [i.e. the pill, which can also kill your unborn sons and daughters by blocking their implantation in your wife’s womb], the highly dangerous IUD’s [infections, copper toxicity, etc], and other artificial disruptions of your wife’s body and yours… in addition to the notorious unreliability of all of the above (and the subsequent fear, stress and uncertainty that come with it).
And why was it moral for my parents to avoid birth control and have six children, that they took horrible care of and abused, but immoral for my wife and I to limit our family size to what we are emotionally and financially prepared to handle?
The two cases have nothing at all to do with each other. Having a large number of children does not guarantee abuse, any more than having a small number of children guarantees a lack of abuse; I’d assert to you that your parents, at least to some extent, were ill… and that they would have been abusive, no matter how many (or how few) children they had. In fact, most of the large-family households I know are some of the most loving, abuse-free places ‘ve ever had the pleasure to visit! (It’s noisy, I’ll admit, and sometimes chaotic, but beautiful!) Your parents may even have made the “excuse” that their anger was due to the large family; but that was a falsehood. Managing a large household can add stress, yes… but there are ways to manage that; having an only child can also add stress… but there are ways to manage that.
And I am sorry. I find it hard to divorce Christianity from the horrible experiences of my childhood.
I understand… and it’s not at all surprising (and no bad reflection on you). That, in fact, is why I’d urge you to pray for your parents, and for those misguided souls from your faith-community who added (either knowingly or unknowingly) to your torments; they are in a position of facing a fearful judgment when they stand before God’s throne… not only because of the pain that they helped cause you, but because they made the Gospel of His Son so bitter-tasting to you, at the moment. I tremble for them, frankly.
And it galls me to still today see the same church praising my parents for having a large family when the church elders know full well how they treated my siblings and I.
I suppose I’d need to distinguish two things: praise for being open to life (which is a very good thing), and their negligence and/or incompetence in failing to rebuke the abuse of which they were aware. The latter was evil; the first was good.
I tend to fly off the handle at Christians in general, especially when I percieve that kind of attitude (that big god-given families are wonderful, no matter how prepared you are).
Given your experiences, I can understand your reactions; “once bitten, twice shy”. That’s another thing for which the authorities in your life will have to answer, to Almighty God: the fact that they also took God’s gift of fertility and made IT bitter to your taste, as well. They did an incredible amount of damage, it seems.
I do not mean to paint everyone with the same brush. I would like to believe everyone here would protect abused children, not just tell them to suck it up because god wants you to honor your parents.
You are quite right (and safe) in believing that. Honor of one’s parents is not unconditional, and it never was, and it was never meant to be; it cannot, for example, supercede the moral law of God. If, for example, one’s parents ordered one to torture one’s sister, one would be honour-bound to refuse (since honour of, and obedience to, God supercedes honour of, and obedience to, parents). There’s a great deal more to say about the right understanding of the 4th Commandment, but we can let that rest until another time.
Paladin- Are your Canadian? Or British?
Jack, I also am sorry for what was done to you. Unfortunately humans are sinful no matter “Christian” or not. We are sinful creatures. I grew up in a Christian home and my parents were far from perfect but good parents. But I looked at my large church and saw so much hypocrisy that I got my eyes off God and onto people and started the “well I’m better than that person” game. It eventually sprouted such bitterness towards church and Christians that I left church. A few years ago I got right with God and realized I have to keep my focus on God and His Word and not what others do or say. It doesn’t matter what other Christians call right or wrong…it only matters what God says. If you were a Christian and knew that things were right between and the Lord (based on the Bible) it doesn’t matter what others think of you…just what God thinks of you. That is something I am still learning.
That being said I think “birth control” removes your wife’s fertility from the equation (and yours). As a wife whose husband insists on using condoms I can honestly say I’d rather my husband be knowledgeable about my cycle and show self control by abstaining when I’m fertile than to expect me to be sexually at his beck and call and slip on a condom that feels like he is “protecting” himself from me. I can’t describe it but to me NFP seems so much more pro-woman and respectful.
Jack,
By the way, your deep concern for having more children right now given your restraints means that NFP would be far more effective in preventing pregnancy than having sex during your fertile window and hoping that the your birth control method works. It’s really blind faith because all you have is hope since contraception routinely fails. Charting to find your fertile times and avoiding them means that you have a much better chance of not getting pregnant.
My parents used two forms of birth control (one of which was abortive) when I was conceived and here I am! I love it. It’s like I’m crashing some big party called life. :)
Jacqueline wrote:
Paladin- Are your Canadian? Or British?
:) Ah, but that would be telling! EGV would be so disappointed to have his mystery question foiled…
(If you like, try to find me on Facebook; I have quite a few “friends” in common from this board, there. Otherwise, e-mail me [by going to my woefully neglected blog, at my name link, and clicking the link for my complete profile], and we can chat!)
Jacqueline and Paladin, thank you for your kind replies. I now feel rather ashamed for being rude before.
” If you have serious reason to avoid pregnancy for the time being, you and your wife are free to abstain from sexual intercourse during the fertile periods of your wife’s cycle (Natural Family Planning [NFP] is the name for the science by which such times can usually be determined very accurately), and use those times to replace orgasm with the manifold other ways that you can show your love for one another”
See, this is where I have a problem. My son was planned and we were ready for him, but we tried this NFP after he was born (it wasn’t called that in my church when I was growing up, but it’s based on the same principles). Only a year after my son’s birth my wife was pregnant with my daughter. My daughter is a precious gift, and I wouldn’t trade her for the world, but I really can’t take the risk of another child. My daughter is six months old, and my wife had a really hard time with her pregnancy, and is still partially recovering. We do abstain from sex on fertile days, and I do agree that it is good for our marriage, but we use condoms when we do have sex, because we really can’t emotionally, financially, or physically handle another child. I really don’t see why the extra protection of a condom, just in case we misjudged her cycle (like we did before, remember my daughter!) is intrinsically sinful.
“and it frees you from the mess and inconvenience of condoms, the toxic and body-altering effects of hormonal contraception [i.e. the pill, which can also kill your unborn sons and daughters by blocking their implantation in your wife’s womb], the highly dangerous IUD’s [infections, copper toxicity, etc], and other artificial disruptions of your wife’s body and yours… in addition to the notorious unreliability of all of the above (and the subsequent fear, stress and uncertainty that come with it).”
We have never considered IUD’s or the pill, because we have heard that they can cause early abortions. Plus my wife’s health is pretty delicate, and we don’t want to pump her up with hormones. I just fail to understand why simply using a condom is so bad. We aren’t being irresponsible or anti-life, we simply want our children to be well-fed and healthy, and another child would make this much harder.
“The two cases have nothing at all to do with each other. Having a large number of children does not guarantee abuse, any more than having a small number of children guarantees a lack of abuse; I’d assert to you that your parents, at least to some extent, were ill… and that they would have been abusive, no matter how many (or how few) children they had. In fact, most of the large-family households I know are some of the most loving, abuse-free places ‘ve ever had the pleasure to visit! (It’s noisy, I’ll admit, and sometimes chaotic, but beautiful!) Your parents may even have made the “excuse” that their anger was due to the large family; but that was a falsehood. Managing a large household can add stress, yes… but there are ways to manage that; having an only child can also add stress… but there are ways to manage that.”
I agree with you for the most part here. Large families are great if you are prepared for them. You are right that my parents excused their physically abusive behavior from the stresses of providing for us all. That’s probably why I have such a knee jerk reaction. I don’t want to be so stressed from too many children that I snap. I never want to hurt my kids. As to my parents being ill, that may be true. I am pretty sure my father is mentally ill. I think my mother just felt trapped, no way out of her horrible marriage (and she knew what my dad was doing to me and my brother behind closed doors, but she blamed us for causing him to sin which may be true, I don’t know if I did anything wrong or not), and no help with her large family. She took it out on us physically. I love my mother, but I do not want to BE her. Once we all grew up and moved out she calmed down a lot, so I think at least some of her stress was due to the circumstances she was stuck in, and once those changed she became a little better. I am not as angry at her as I used to be, because I understand she was in a situation that she didn’t have a lot of control of. And I was a pretty bratty kid, worse than my siblings, and I can’t say for certain she wasn’t within her rights to beat on me sometimes when I was being very willful. I don’t ever want me or my wife to be in a situation that we feel so overwhelmed that we hurt our children. I would never forgive myself. That is part of the reason I really don’t want more than two children.
“You are quite right (and safe) in believing that. Honor of one’s parents is not unconditional, and it never was, and it was never meant to be; it cannot, for example, supercede the moral law of God. If, for example, one’s parents ordered one to torture one’s sister, one would be honour-bound to refuse (since honour of, and obedience to, God supercedes honour of, and obedience to, parents). There’s a great deal more to say about the right understanding of the 4th Commandment, but we can let that rest until another time.”
Well, I am glad to hear that. I was always taught to obey my parents in all things, no matter what. I still feel guilty for leaving the faith and condemning them for being abusive, I am not being very obedient. Are you saying that you interpret that you honor your parents, unless they are breaking rules from God, then you must follow God’s law over honoring them? I shouldn’t have submitted to what my father wanted because it broke other biblical commandments? So what was I supposed to do, and what am I supposed to do now, if I want to come back to the faith?
Paladin- I would love to unfold the mystery, but my computer crashed and that makes it much harder on a smartphone. I will just give you my link and you can add me. :)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=23932888
“My parents used two forms of birth control (one of which was abortive) when I was conceived and here I am! I love it. It’s like I’m crashing some big party called life. ”
Well, I am certainly glad you weren’t aborted, and I hope your parents treated you well, even if you were unplanned. My daughter was a “surprise” but we love her unconditionally.
“ A few years ago I got right with God and realized I have to keep my focus on God and His Word and not what others do or say. It doesn’t matter what other Christians call right or wrong…it only matters what God says. If you were a Christian and knew that things were right between and the Lord (based on the Bible) it doesn’t matter what others think of you…just what God thinks of you. That is something I am still learning.”
I understand, but I can’t understand how to do that. The Bible has so many different rules and regulations, some seeming contradictory, so how am I supposed to know if I am really right with the Lord? I am agnostic because I am reluctant to involve myself with a religion that caused my childhood circumstances, not because I hate God. I would like to find faith again, but not at the expense of my children or well-being.
“That being said I think “birth control” removes your wife’s fertility from the equation (and yours). As a wife whose husband insists on using condoms I can honestly say I’d rather my husband be knowledgeable about my cycle and show self control by abstaining when I’m fertile than to expect me to be sexually at his beck and call and slip on a condom that feels like he is “protecting” himself from me. I can’t describe it but to me NFP seems so much more pro-woman and respectful.”
As someone who was at someone’s sexual beck and call most of my childhood, I would certainly never in a million years want my wife to feel like she has to do anything sexual with me. She tends to complain that I don’t initiate enough, that she doesn’t feel sexy or wanted because I am not physically expressive enough. I don’t want her to feel like that, but I don’t want to risk being too aggressive or having another child.
“Well, I am certainly glad you weren’t aborted, and I hope your parents treated you well, even if you were unplanned. My daughter was a “surprise” but we love her unconditionally.”
My folks are anti-abortion (moreso since I became a pro-life activist at 19) so I was never at intentional risk of abortion. My mother (a nurse) was in nursing school during Roe v. Wade and made it clear that she would have nothing to do with that “new wing” in the hospital. Sadly, she didn’t know any better about the abortive pill so I wonder how many siblings I may have had. My parents would never have killed me, though (not on purpose).
The way my mom tells it now as an adult, my older sister was so overwhelmingly difficult that she didn’t have the courage to intentionally try for more children. Ironically, my sister instantly straightened up when I came along and I was a giggly bundle of joy who laughed until I ran out of air- so luckily my parents were blessed in spite of their fears although my mom says she was embarassed to be visibly pregnant with a 2-year-old because people would judge her for NOT using birth control, although she had. You can’t win either way in today’s society. :)
I have no doubt that you adore your daughter in spite of the fact that she was a surprise. It makes me wonder, though- parents never regret their surprise children but still go to great lengths to avoid them. When surprises come along, somehow we all make do and are infinitely better off and can’t imagine life without this new member of our family. Yet, that was the very person we tried to avoid having. It makes me ask what we are choosing to forego and if the the things we are trading children for (more money, time, etc) are worth the trade. I understand prudence in not intentionally taking on responsibilities that we feel we can’t handle, I just see the irony in that somehow, we CAN handle them and we tend to be better off for doing so. My phobia is less about being able to provide and handle children but more about purposefully choosing to avoid a priceless gift that I couldn’t live without once I knew I had it. I don’t want that kind of control. I am not quiver-full in ideology (I don’t agree with it in that I don’t think it’s expected by God, good or wise to have children without considering all of the implications to your family) but I know that I would never feel okay with choosing to say No to children on purpose. Then again, it’s easy to say this since I am 30 and by the time I may marry could only have a few children as it is. It might be a different ballgame if I married at 22. Interestingly enough, my closest quiver full friends married at 17 and 18 and have no reservations at all.
I don’t want to compare apples and oranges, but I’ve felt the need to morally accept responsibilities (nothing like a child) when I was not equipped to handle them. I simply couldn’t say no because it needed to be done (like raising my goddaughters while working 2 jobs and finishing a Ph.D is one example) or because it was too good an opportunity to turn down (teaching my own classes at the university for example). They were the pearl of great price, and no matter how little time I had, I would find SOME way, someHOW to make it work, even when I was only sleeping 4 hours every other night to get it all done. This is because it had to happen or I couldn’t say no to such a gift- or both. Although it was hard and cost me quite a bit, I don’t ever regret saying yes. I know I would regret wondering what if had I said no. In the case of my girls, No was not an option and I wouldn’t have chosen no if it had been, but I see so much blessing in saying yes, that I don’t see myself ever saying “no” to having more children. This is just from my experience, which is limited as I have never had a child of my own, so take it for what it’s worth. :)
Jacqueline,
I am happy to hear that your folks were loving and treated you like a child should be treated, with acceptance and love. I am always happy to hear that a child was treated well, no matter the circumstances of their birth. I can’t describe the awful feeling that comes from knowing that it would have been preferable that you weren’t born.
My wife and I married at nineteen, had our son at twenty, our daughter at twenty-two, and we are now twenty-three. With no family planning or medical issues, we could probably have six or seven more children before my wife goes through menopause. And I simply cannot do that. I am not cut out to be a father to so many children. I had to work hard enough to be a good father to my existing children. I do not want to take the risk that my children will be as hungry as I was, or that I might snap and hurt them under stress. I don’t see any other thing to do other than avoid more children. I really don’t have any other options. I understand that people make sacrifices, but I am not going to sacrifice my children’s emotional and physical well-being so I can have more children. I just can’t make them go through that.
And one more general thought- I am disturbed that contraception has made NOT having children the default in a marriage. My best friend, mother of my two godsons was married for 8 years, raising her baby sister- and it wasn’t until I came along 6 years into her marriage that she started thinking about children. She was raised as the oldest in an abusive, neglectful, alcoholic home with 7 kids, 6 different fathers (she doesn’t even know who her father is) to a never-married mom and she took care of her siblings her whole childhood, so she was quick to put that behind her. She said that when she met me, the way I talked about children made her stop and ask “Why wouldn’t I want to be blessed?” It took another 2 years to get her husband on board because there is always a reason to wait. Soon after, my 2 and a half year old precious godson was born and then his brother, who turned 1 last Monday.
My point is (beyond an excuse to mention my godsons), children used to be the expected fruit of a marriage. Now it’s something that’s delayed by default and only done on purpose. Y’all might think it’s a good thing, but I think that’s kind of sad. Instead of seeing children as the gift they are and only discussing preventing them in rare circumstances, now people separate children and marriage and only discuss HAVING them in rare circumstances. I don’t like this transposition at all (if transposition is a word).
:) Done, Milady! (You’ll recognize me, I think, by the rather exotic wig I’m wearing in my photo, and my lovely wife sitting to the left.) And I have a question to ask you, once the “friendship” is confirmed…
As for the current discussion: carry on! I’ll jump in if you’d like, Jack, but Jacqueline is handling things so wonderfully, with such a wealth of relevant personal experience, that I’d feel like an elephant trying to waltz in-between rows of delicate orchids, by barging in with comments now!
Jack,
Do you realize that statistically speaking, short of self-mutilation via vasectomy or tubal ligation (and even those self-repair) that at least one more child is going to happen? Given that you and your wife have a healthy sex life and 20 more years of fertility- children are unavoidable. I am not suggesting you try to have more and more children, but I am saying that when you inevitably do end up with another baby, you will find that you are more than capable. You’ve already found that out once. Isn’t that the case with your daughter? You thought you couldn’t handle another one and discovered you were wrong. When you have a 3rd, you’ll discover that your capacity grows then too. My mom thought she could only handle my sister and then I came along. I have a ton of stories of people that thought the same thing and found that you always rise to the occasion and are all the better for it.
I am not belittling your concerns, only saying that you will find a way to take care of number 3 if you were to have a number 3 (because I sincerely doubt would leave him/her on a porch doorstep in a basket). Since you will take care of him/her, you are capable. If it were truly that dire that having another child would result in starvation or abuse towards your first two (whom you love greatly), you wouldn’t risk pregnancy at all. At least I hope you wouldn’t. If I knew that getting pregnant would mean that my girls would starve or I would hit them, I would never take any risk of that and would abstain completely in my marriage because sex isn’t worth hurting my children. In fact, this is why I’ve abstained my whole single adult life, because sex isn’t worth hurting my children who don’t even exist (conceiving them without a father, etc). So are your concerns that severe? I don’t know your circumstances, but I doubt another child would hurt your two kids. I’m not suggesting you have another child on purpose, but just realistically assess what would truly happen if you wife got pregnant tomorrow. I think that baby would be born into much rejoicing and you would be a good father and provider all the same. In fact, I’m sure of it.
Okay, Paladin- because we have two mutual friends from one of the aforementioned countries, I think I have my answer. And also, your wife IS lovely. :)
Paladin:
I don’t come here for civil exchanges. I come because reading the opinions expressed on this site gives me a richer appreciation for living in twenty-first century America.
Ex-GOP
I know my bible pretty well and know of no scripture that condemns married couples practicing contraception. If the contraceptive actually kills life that has already started that would be wrong. Any contraceptives that just prevent contraception are not forbidden anywhere in scripture. And I also believe that married couples have enough challenges in the day and age we live in without being told what that can and cannot do.
Ever heard of Onan, Myrtle? Genesis 38, 8-10.
Bullemia is not condemned in Scripture. Nowhere does it say that I can not vomit what I eat on purpose to take the pleasure of eating but not gain the nutrition. But it is clearly wrong, a perversion and like all perversions it has consequences. Taking what you want from a biological function and leaving it’s other intents causes problems. Food’s purpose is nutrition, although it also tastes good and bonds people who eat together. Like food gives pleasure, sex gives pleasure and bonds people, but to take only the pleasure is a perversion that had consequences. The consequences of the perversion of birth control is barrenness. Sadly, that’s it’s purpose. Barrenness is a curse in the Bible and yet Christian couples want to curse themselves and not think there is anything wrong with it? The other consequences of the perversion of birth control include marital problems that it creates and so on. It’s clearly wrong because it bears rotten fruit as well.
All churches condemned birth control until 1930- the Protestants on their Sola Scriptura grounds. God’s mind hasn’t changed. He didn’t say during the sexual revolution, “I guess I was wrong. Birth control’s okay!” Nope- it’s just that some people wanted to please man and not God. This is why every platform of every major denominations besides the Souther Baptists, Catholics and Orthodox now SUPPORT abortion. This is why there is openly gay clergy. Pleasing people means saying that self-destructive sin is okay, which is what happened with contraception- and look where that led.
By the way, many things that are self-evidently wrong or wrong (but require explanation) are not explicitly condemned in the Bible. Abortion for example is clearly evil, but it’s a stretch to get Scripture alone to condemn it. You could make a good argument FOR abortion using your Bible if you wanted. You could also find support for polygamy in scripture too although it is clearly wrong. You knowing your Bible well (or the parts that Martin Luther says are the Bible), Myrtle does not mean you have the goods on what is and is not immoral. There is more.
Lisa wrote:
I don’t come here for civil exchanges. I come because reading the opinions expressed on this site gives me a richer appreciation for living in twenty-first century America.
…and you don’t think both can be achieved at the same time? I do…
Ever heard of Onan, Myrtle? Genesis 38, 8-10.
From what I’ve been taught of this scripture, it does not deal with contraception, but with Onan’s direct refusal to carry out a command of the Lord by providing offspring for his deceased brother’s wife, in his brother’s name.
To say this deals with contraception is, to me, similar to the pro-abort argument claiming Exodus 21:22 is a support for “choice.” Both are a twisting of Scripture.
You knowing your Bible well (or the parts that Martin Luther says are the Bible)
Please remember that there are pro-life Protestants here who would prefer not to be insulted or have their faith maligned.
Thank you, Kel.
Btw, Jacqueline, I agree with your statement that there is always one more reason to wait when it comes to children. I am engaged in a struggle to get my husband on board with having more children. I have one child already. He has a list a thousand miles long about why we should “wait”. I’m sorry, I told him, but my ovaries are not gonna wait that long till you get through that list.
We weren’t ready for our son yet it has all worked out and we wouldn’t trade him for a palace in Tuscany! He is the greatest blessing of my life.
I know WHEN we have more children my husband is going to wonder why we waited so long. I ALMOST have him on board too ;-) I am hoping to get pregnant this month as long as he doesn’t change his mind… again.
“My point is (beyond an excuse to mention my godsons), children used to be the expected fruit of a marriage. Now it’s something that’s delayed by default and only done on purpose. Y’all might think it’s a good thing, but I think that’s kind of sad. Instead of seeing children as the gift they are and only discussing preventing them in rare circumstances, now people separate children and marriage and only discuss HAVING them in rare circumstances. I don’t like this transposition at all (if transposition is a word).”
I don’t think it’s necessarily that children and marriage are separated. I certainly expected at least one child when I got married, even though I was pretty reluctant. It is simply that the world has changed a lot and it really isn’t that practical to have so many kids. I mean, I might possibly, if I really scrimp and save, be able to send my kids to college when they are of age. The more kids I have, the less chance they have of being able to go to college. I didn’t even graduate high school, and I am forever stuck in crappy jobs because of this. I want better for my kids. I want my daughter to be able to be a stay-at-home mom if she wishes to, and not be forced to work like my wife is because her husband is undereducated and unable to be a better provider. I would like my son to have a good education so he can fully provide for a family some day, if he chooses. I don’t want them stuck in the trap that my wife and are in. The way that society is structured today, it seems much more practical and caring to have fewer children to focus on, so that you can give them everything that they deserve. How do you know that God didn’t allow birth control to be invented so families have the option of having less children to provide for?
” Do you realize that statistically speaking, short of self-mutilation via vasectomy or tubal ligation (and even those self-repair) that at least one more child is going to happen? Given that you and your wife have a healthy sex life and 20 more years of fertility- children are unavoidable. I am not suggesting you try to have more and more children, but I am saying that when you inevitably do end up with another baby, you will find that you are more than capable. You’ve already found that out once. Isn’t that the case with your daughter? You thought you couldn’t handle another one and discovered you were wrong. ”
I actually did consider a vasectomy. My wife wouldn’t hear of it. She thinks I am worrying too much about it, honestly. She didn’t grow up like I did however. Her family was big, but loving, enough food to eat, no abuse, no terror. We grew up going to the same church, but we are really from two different worlds when it comes to family. She thinks along the lines that you do, that we would manage somehow because her parents did.
After talking with you, I have realized I am more worried about the emotional rather than financial costs of more children. I don’t know how I can express more clearly that I simply cannot handle any more! Both my wife and you, and anyone else I have discussed this with, seems to think more of me than I do. I don’t think my wife is even aware how much a problem more kids. For example, I simply won’t discipline the kids. I frankly have no idea what kind of discipline is appropriate, I had no example to follow to know how to appropriately discipline for each age group. So I won’t discipline, because I won’t take the chance that I would go too far and hurt my kids. So, the discipline falls on my wife. Which she is fine with and can handle, seeing as we only have a two year old and a baby. What happens when we have a six year old, a four year old and a toddler, and she is responsible for all the discipline? Or even more kids? It’s just too stressful.
The only way I can see myself actually wanting more kids is if I get a lot of counseling to get through the damage from my childhood. Problem is, I can’t afford it with a wife and two children! Adding another child to my emotional state is just a bad idea if I don’t have any way to help myself get over my childhood trauma.
” If it were truly that dire that having another child would result in starvation or abuse towards your first two (whom you love greatly), you wouldn’t risk pregnancy at all. At least I hope you wouldn’t. If I knew that getting pregnant would mean that my girls would starve or I would hit them, I would never take any risk of that and would abstain completely in my marriage because sex isn’t worth hurting my children.”
Well, I am probably just flashing back to my own deprived childhood when I worry to extremes like that, but I am my parent’s child. I share their genetic information and I was raised by them. That’s why I will not discipline my children, I don’t want to take even the slightest chance I will do something abusive.
And my wife doesn’t want to abstain, I don’t really want to completely abstain (though I am pretty ambivalent about sex in general). She does not believe there is a problem and thinks I am ridiculous about worrying so much. She seems to agree with your viewpoint, as everyone does except me. So I am probably wrong if everyone including my own wife disagrees with me. But I cannot find a way to want more children. It just sounds terrifying and impossible for me to raise another child. And I have no idea how to change my feelings without some intensive therapy. Or prayer? I don’t know.
I would like to want more children, but I don’t see how I can.
Jack, you sound a LOT like my husband. So similar. I wish I could give you hope and my husband hope. But what can I say?
Sidney,
I am sorry. I hope you and your husband can work through whatever his issues are and you can have another child. I hate that my wife feels deprived because I don’t want more children, I wonder if your husband feels the same? I really wish I had a trustworthy pastor or counselor or SOMEBODY to talk to, it might help me and my wife make decisions about family planning easier. Have you and your husband talked to a therapist or counselor, and did it help at all? It really seems hopeless at times.
Holy cow! Jack, are you sure you’re not my husband online in another part of the house? I feel like I am hearing my husband’s voice with your words.
We are probably facing the exact same situation that you and your wife are facing only we are 34 and 31. Neither of us finished college… me for personal reasons and my husband because he was more interested in the music industry.
I was on the pill and conceived my son “accidentally” He will be 5 this fall and I really really want more children. 2 more would be nice. My husband was so steadfastly against even listening to my feelings for so long it really bred a lot of resentment in my heart towards him. Being a Christian I finally gave it to the Lord and realized I just have to reverence and love my husband in good times and bad. We don’t have a lot of money but I know that we could afford a couple more kids. We are not rich. We are not fancy. We are def blue collar but I know we could do it.
But every time we would be intimate and he would insist on a condom it made me want to leap up and walk out of the bedroom. Thats how I feel. I don’t know if your wife feels the same. It personally made me feel dirty and used. But maybe thats just because I want to get pregnant so badly?
Anyhow, my husband is Catholic but not practicing and I am Baptist (born-again). When I finally started submitting to my husband and not fighting him all the time he began to open up to how I feel. I do hope to get pregnant soon.
He won’t go to any counseling. I’ve tried. But my faith sustains me. My faith that God ultimately is the Creator of life and can bless us even if my husband thinks otherwise ;-) that hope just keeps me going.
I hope you won’t take this the wrong way but I will remember you and your wife in prayer. Your name, btw, is the name we’ve picked for our next son should we be blessed again. So you will come to my mind during prayer I know!
Haha, unless your husband is secretly a 23 year old who lives in Florida I doubt I am him ;)
” My husband was so steadfastly against even listening to my feelings for so long it really bred a lot of resentment in my heart towards him. Being a Christian I finally gave it to the Lord and realized I just have to reverence and love my husband in good times and bad. We don’t have a lot of money but I know that we could afford a couple more kids. We are not rich. We are not fancy. We are def blue collar but I know we could do it.”
Yeah, after talking to Jacqueline I realize my objections to more children have much less to do with finances and more to do with how I was raised and my negative feelings toward trying to raise a big family. If we had another we could probably make do. I am just really hoping I get to send my kids to college, which will be harder to do the more we have. I understand you being upset with you husband for not listening to your feelings about having another child. Especially since you guys are in your early thirties, I don’t know too much about it, but you only have about ten years or so left for childbearing? That makes it a much more pressing issue than for me and my wife, since we are still in our early twenties. I certainly hope that you two can get on the same page.
“But every time we would be intimate and he would insist on a condom it made me want to leap up and walk out of the bedroom. Thats how I feel. I don’t know if your wife feels the same. It personally made me feel dirty and used. But maybe thats just because I want to get pregnant so badly?”
I certainly hope my wife doesn’t feel like that! She is usually bluntly honest, so I think she would have told me by now. It might be because you are ready for another child right now, while my wife wants to wait a couple years before another. Our daughter is only six months old and it was a pretty rough pregnancy. My wife isn’t upset with waiting for a few years, she gets upset when I talk about being done with two children. I will ask her about how using condoms makes her feel though, I would hate to think that she feels bad about herself because of it. Thank you for sharing how it makes you feel.
“He won’t go to any counseling. I’ve tried. But my faith sustains me. My faith that God ultimately is the Creator of life and can bless us even if my husband thinks otherwise that hope just keeps me going.”
That makes me sad that he doesn’t want to go to counseling. I want to but I am torn. It can be pretty expensive and I really, really don’t trust very many people. Which is probably why I am on the internet talking about my abusive childhood and marital problems to strangers rather than to a pastor or elder. I just don’t think I could handle it if another church authority figure betrayed me. :(
“I hope you won’t take this the wrong way but I will remember you and your wife in prayer. Your name, btw, is the name we’ve picked for our next son should we be blessed again. So you will come to my mind during prayer I know!”
I don’t take that the wrong way, not at all. And Jack is a great name, I hope you get the chance to use it soon :). If I can ever get the courage up to pray again I will certainly include you in my prayers.
Thanks Jack! I hope you will get up the courage to pray. Prayer is so so so powerful and I am experiencing the power of prayer in my life. People don’t utilize it enough.
Can I ask a personal question? What religion were you raised in?
I don’t know where you can get free counseling. I would suggest a good fundamentalist Baptist pastor (they will counsel for free) but not sure how you would feel about that given your background.
Can I give you advice from a wife’s perspective? make sure you listen to your spouse. Even if it doesn’t mean you immediately come around to her side, just LISTEN to her heart. Thats what hurts me the most is that when I want to talk about how we can have more children my husband shoots me down and won’t even let me get my feelings out before he is shutting his ears. It used to infuriate me. It is still upsetting but I am learning to just tell God then instead of my husband.
You sound like you have a good heart Jack and a good head on your shoulders. I think you will see as you get older it works out.
Jack, it seems to me that it might not be a bad idea to, for at least a little while, to think of “do I want more children?” and “what kind of birth control should I practice?” as two separate issues, and to work on the first issue first. That seems to require dealing with your own abuse first. I know that no one has good health insurance these days, but you might check with your employer’s HR office to see if they have any kind of Employee Assistance Program–these often cover short-term (maybe 5 sessions) counseling that can help you get started in the right direction. Have you connected with any groups that might be helpful? Survivors of Incest Anonymous (http://www.siawso.org/) and Adult Survivors of Child Abuse (http://www.ascasupport.org/) both might be useful. I don’t know much about either group, but the first one, at least, seems to have a spiritual dimension comparable to AA, so it may be a good fit for you.
Good luck!
Lisa
“Can I ask a personal question? What religion were you raised in?”
Well, they refer to it as “Evangelical Christianity,” but the more I understand what actual Christians believe it seems to me that they were more a Christian-like cult than anything. I mean, they had all the normal beliefs about the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity, and all those tenets, but they were deviant from other Christian sects. For example, if you belonged to the church you were required to homeschool your children, and I have never heard of anything like that in other Christian denominations. I think homeschooling is fine if people choose to do it, but when it’s a cover-up for abuse like it was in my family and church it isn’t a good thing. Also, people in that church were not allowed to talk to family who did not belong to the church, which is why I don’t know any of my extended family, even though I am pretty sure both my parents are from big families. I don’t know if that’s normal in other denominations but I am guessing not. So, yeah, I don’t know if I was really raised Christian at all.
I wouldn’t mind talking to a pastor, but it would be difficult. The last time I tried to get help was from my youth pastor, who refused to help me with my abusive home life. So it will take a heck of a lot of courage to talk to a pastor again, if I can find one that seems trustworthy enough.
“Can I give you advice from a wife’s perspective? make sure you listen to your spouse. Even if it doesn’t mean you immediately come around to her side, just LISTEN to her heart. Thats what hurts me the most is that when I want to talk about how we can have more children my husband shoots me down and won’t even let me get my feelings out before he is shutting his ears. It used to infuriate me. It is still upsetting but I am learning to just tell God then instead of my husband.”
Well, I will take that advice to heart. I try not to shoot her down when she talks about future children, but it’s hard when it is such a sensitive issue. I will try to be more vigilant. And I hope that your husband can start listening to you, you don’t deserve to be ignored even if he doesn’t agree.
“You sound like you have a good heart Jack and a good head on your shoulders. I think you will see as you get older it works out.”
Thank you. You have no idea how little I have been told I am even worth the breath I breathe. Only my wife and my sister have seemed to think I am worth anything.
Jack, that is horrible someone would say that to you. You seem like a really compassionate soul but even if you were a hateful jerk you are still worth something. Every person is worth something. You are no exception. You are important!!!!!!
” I know that no one has good health insurance these days, but you might check with your employer’s HR office to see if they have any kind of Employee Assistance Program–these often cover short-term (maybe 5 sessions) counseling that can help you get started in the right direction. Have you connected with any groups that might be helpful? Survivors of Incest Anonymous (http://www.siawso.org/) and Adult Survivors of Child Abuse (http://www.ascasupport.org/) both might be useful. I don’t know much about either group, but the first one, at least, seems to have a spiritual dimension comparable to AA, so it may be a good fit for you.”
Yeah, I don’t have insurance at the moment, since I got cut to part-time. So that makes things difficult. And I have tried a few of those type of survivor groups, and I keep running into the same problem. Almost all of the victims seem to be female. While it doesn’t bother me, I generally trust women more than men, it seems to bother them. Most women were abused by men, and talking about abuse issues with a man doesn’t seem to make them feel very comfortable. They are never rude, I just get the feeling that they would heal better if I weren’t there. I went to a sexual abuse group therapy thing once, I was the only guy, and it seemed as though I was impeding some women’s progress in healing. I really would love to find a abuse victims group geared toward males. It seems like it would be more effective. But I haven’t seen anything like that yet.
And Sidney, now you are starting to sound exactly like my wife. Did we accidentally switch spouses or something? ;)
Ha ha, its almost freaky isn’t it?
Jack – hang in there. being a parent means that you can do a re-do on your upbringing. You do not have to have the same fears, upsets or anything.
Do you know that places like Catholic Charities has counseling on a sliding scale? And you do not have to be Catholic? And that children do not have to have their parents pay for college? There are lots of grants, etc, and many students get aid to go – especially if their family needs the help, and if your youngsters are smart – there are merit scholarships too.
Jack and Sydney – just know to try to pray hard for your spouses and situations. Get good support from wise people who will guide you. Pray for patience and perseverance. God can help in all situations. He is the Divine Doctor – hoping to make all people whole. Trust, love and pray.
And couch-time is so important. Men do need to know that their women need to speak to them and have the husbands listen and support. When the men do not seem to care or spend time with everything else, it sends the signals to the wives that they are not important. Yes – children are in need of time, energy, love and attention too – but please keep your marital union strong and primary. It came before children, and god-willing will last after the children grow.
And women need to know that men need down-time too – to not launch into what needs fixing, doing the second he walks in the door. Praise, thank-you’s and time go a long way to help each other. Asking each other 3 questions daily: What are you thinking/feeling/experiencing today? What do you need from me? and how can I be a better husband/wife to you? If couples do this for each other, ideally daily, that would work wonders. Praying together and for each other is also lovely.
Every marriage goes through tough times – and every marriage can rise like a phoenix – just take the time and give the heart. God bless.
Jack – pray like mad – pray for your wife, for you and your marriage. Please know that your parents did NOT do what they should have – no person deserved the treatment you received. Your parents were not doing as they should have. And Christians have a higher standard to meet. Just know that they must be not right in their souls/psyche – and pray for their healing too.
Paladin -
I wish there were side threads or something to make it easier to follow these conversations – I jumped into my email and had 40 plus messages on this thread, so who knows if I’m caught up on everything. If I miss something, it isn’t deliberate.
I’m referring to your post at 1:12 today.
Let me clarify my statement on “stretching something out that is not explicit”. I think there have been a great number of people through time that have come up with things that a person MUST do for salvation, or if they are a Christian that aren’t necessarily clearly stated in the Bible. Now, I do agree in interpretation. I also believe that if it is a big deal, Christ is going to say it is a big deal. I don’t believe that the Bible is deceptive – that a person needs to study it for 40 years to simply understand how to be a Christian. A person should study it to better understand and follow Christ – yes – but if I go hear a sermon that is 40 minutes long and has little to no scriptural reference, I’m going to be skeptical.
Now, if the official Catholic positions is “it depends” on contraceptive use, and it isn’t a matter of salvation, well, we have no issue and we can just end this conversation here.
When we get into the question of contraception though – what I found lacking was that in your previous discussion that you referred to, you skipped over (or I missed it) why you believe contraception is wrong. Sure, I can understand and see the point of “the pill” – but my reference was condoms. Now, you just simply state “do they know it is wrong”? So what are you saying – that it is wrong? That it isn’t? You seem to be a little Clintonesque here…”what is the meaning of the word “is”. The couple is a loving couple who wants to delay Children. They live in upper new york, have a dog and a mortgage. They both work full time and go to a Methodist church. She likes to dance in her free time – he plays Texas Hold ’em with his friends.
I love that you now demand chapter and verses, though I seem to have missed any from you…but here we go.
Abortion – very easy one in my eyes:
Psalm 139 – knit in the womb… (or Job 31:15 or Isaiah 44:2) – God grants personhood to a pre-born child
Exodus 20:13 – shall not murder (and thus, if the pre-born baby is a person, I would say this verse applies)
Though I haven’t seen it reference much in abortion, I also think the first couple verses in James Chapter 4 apply as well – and I think it speaks more to the motivation and lack of faith involved in abortion. A person who has an abortion is selling God short – they’ll claim they aren’t ready, don’t have the money, would be a bad parent…it’s a lack of faith in God that God will provide for them.
Now, that isn’t explicitly about abortion, but I think it would be an easy case to make.
2nd question – I don’t believe interpretation is adding to the scriptures. I do, however, believe that honest people will disagree about some passages, and I think that this is allowable, and I think it is dangerous for people to say those matters are a bullet point for salvation.
I’ve had well meaning Christians try to convince me that God would be a capitalist, and somebody who believes in a different economic system isn’t following Biblical teachings. Can two Christians debate on this sort of stuff? Sure – but to make it into a matter of salvation, to me, is taking it an extra, dangerous step.
3) Beginning of Deuteronomy has a similar message to the end of Revelation – don’t add or subtract anything from the Scriptures.
So my belief on it all? I think Christian couples, if they agree, can use contraception and feel confident that they won’t be thrown into the depths of hell because they did. I see nothing Biblically that prohibits it strongly enough. I do believe that people can make the deduction for themselves that contraception is bad, and should be avoided as they, in soul searching, might believe their motives aren’t pure. I’m not going to judge them one way or another on it, lest I be judged myself!
joyfromillinois,
Thank you for your support. I will look up the charity you mentioned. I am leery of churches and clergy in general, but I do understand that 99% of the time pastors and priests are good people. I was just unlucky enough to have a horrible experience at an impressionable age that makes it difficult for me to look at Christianity objectively. Thank you for the advice and support.
Sidney,
My wife has read our comments and would like to let you know she is praying for you, and understands where you are coming from, and that she wants to give your husband a good kick in the butt to get him in gear! Now you know what I am in for in a couple years when she wants more kids! She appreciates you letting me see the other side of this issue, and hopes you get your new son or daughter soon.
Well, they refer to it as “Evangelical Christianity,” but the more I understand what actual Christians believe it seems to me that they were more a Christian-like cult than anything. I mean, they had all the normal beliefs about the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity, and all those tenets, but they were deviant from other Christian sects. For example, if you belonged to the church you were required to homeschool your children, and I have never heard of anything like that in other Christian denominations. I think homeschooling is fine if people choose to do it, but when it’s a cover-up for abuse like it was in my family and church it isn’t a good thing. Also, people in that church were not allowed to talk to family who did not belong to the church, which is why I don’t know any of my extended family, even though I am pretty sure both my parents are from big families. I don’t know if that’s normal in other denominations but I am guessing not. So, yeah, I don’t know if I was really raised Christian at all.
Hi Jack. It does indeed sound as if you were raised in a type of cult. One of my best friends grew up in a very similar situation where there was a lot of spiritual abuse going on and a lot of control issues/abuse by church leadership, in particular. I know it’s taken her quite a bit of time to work through it with God’s help, and she is 27, unmarried, no kids. I hope you can work through this and realize the love of God is not at all reflective of what you grew up with. It’s really difficult sometimes for us to separate the religious environment we grew up with from the reality of who God is – after all, we’ve never seen anything else. I believe you aren’t here by accident, Jack. A lot of us are going to be praying for you and your wife, and I hope that you can find someone to talk with who can help you find your way to the real Jesus Christ, who loves you and sacrificed Himself for you. “A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick, He will not snuff out.” Isaiah 42:3. You are a bruised reed, Jack, but God sees and knows you and loves you. Your worth is immeasurable in His eyes. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Thank you for sharing your story with us here. It was very courageous. I wish you the very best.
Kel
That’s the only scripture that came to mind and I arrived at the same conclusion you did. Usually when people take scripture out of context it’s because they’ve read very little of the bible.
Usually when people take scripture out of context it’s because they’ve read very little of the bible.
Myrtle, I’m not accusing anyone of that. But there isn’t anything in that particular verse to support the contraception idea.
Here is a link that describes Onan’s responsibility to his brother’s wife. He broke Mosaic law. He was to provide an heir for his brother’s estate, and he refused to do so. This was his job as kinsman-redeemer, as we also read in the book of Ruth:
Deut 25:5-10. the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother . . . shall take her to him to wife–This usage existed before the age of Moses ( Gen 38:8 ). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory ( Mat 22:25 ) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow ( Rth 4:4 ), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother’s name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe–a sign of degradation–following up that act by spitting on the ground– the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.
Jacqueline
Although I see valid points made in your argument you haven’t cited your sources so maybe it’s just opinion. I’m not going to site sources either and will just present a few observations. Although I don’t agree with contraceptives that cause the death of an embryo I do agree with contraceptive use between consenting adults. In my opinion consenting adults should be married but that’s just my opinion. And adults or just that adults if they want to limit the size of their family more power to them. Should they decide they want a large family I can also see the beauty in that. I think this should be a decision between two adults and not government or church. Besides using contraceptives to determine the size of a family I think when a womans health is at risk and she uses contraceptives to protect her health I think that is her right. I find it presumptious for anyone to think they have any right to tell married people what they can and can’t do.
“That’s the only scripture that came to mind and I arrived at the same conclusion you did. Usually when people take scripture out of context it’s because they’ve read very little of the bible.”
So two people, who perhaps have never been to seminary, learned Greek, Hebrew, and cultural contexts- these two people agree and that settles it? On what authority? Do people not see the arrogance in saying, “I’ve read my Bible so what I think it says is what it says.”? I didn’t become Catholic until 7 years after I was saved and I never feigned to be a theologian. I understood the difference between the Holy Spirit using Scripture to speak to me and definitively declaring what something says and leading people astray by it, as Myrtle is doing with contraception.
To clarify: this Scripture in Genesis multi-faceted, but it involves someone wanting to have sex and not have a child. That’s the whole point of contraception: people wanting to have sex but not a child. No, the Bible doesn’t explicitly forbid contraception (it doesn’t explicitly forbid many evil things), but in the one instance it’s referred to, it didn’t work out too well for the perpetrator. Given there were other factors, but this can serve as a cautionary tale. People ascribe heightened meaning to so many other tales in the Bible, but I guess seeing something like this doesn’t suit your purpose and you choose to explain it away much like people that support homosexuality state that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroy not because of sodom but because they didn’t take care of their poor.
Like I said in detail, Scripture can be used to actually JUSTIFY clearly evil things like having a harem, polygamy, etc.- Not by twisting Scripture, but by simply quoting it both in and without context. In these cases, opposition to it comes from tradition, not the Bible. Yet that tradition that you would use to oppose polygamy is the same tradition that churches rejected during the sexual revolution.
My question remains: Since all Christian denominations opposed contraception until 60 years ago, did God change his mind? Were all churches simply wrong until the sexual revolution? Must have been by your logic.
Myrtle,
My opinion isn’t opinion- it’s the teachings of all Christendom prior to 1960. I don’t think every Church was wrong between A.D. 50 and A.D. 1960 and became enlightened with the invent of the birth control pill. Or were you referring to using the Bible to make a case for other moral wrongs like polygamy? What would you like me to cite? Bible passages that could be used to support moral evils that Christians reject in spite of it not being explicitly condemned? I can if you’d like.
You’ve explained why you think contraception is morally okay and cited an absence of explicit condemnation of it (in spite of the Bible touting the blessing of children and the curse of barrenness, clearly stating that choosing to reject children is rejecting God’s greatest gift) I’ve explained why it’s not morally okay and that all of Christendom agreed with this until some groups caved to popular culture. But an absence of explicit condemnation of it in Scripture does not mean it’s morally acceptable and you shouldn’t present it as such- since I can point out that much of what you find morally unacceptable is also not explicitly condemned in the Bible. Rape, for example is all over the Old Testament- virgins as the spoils of war, etc. How would you feel then if I said, like you about contraception:
“I know my bible pretty well and know of no scripture that condemns rape. If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her is in Deuteromy 22:28-29 NLT but rape itself is not forbidden anywhere in scripture. And I also believe that people have enough challenges in the day and age we live in without being told what that can and cannot do.”
Tell me you would be rightly angered.
Jacqueline
I didn’t read all of your post because I’m a pretty good judge of character. I’m really sorry if you have problems wrapping your head around the fact that God puts value on married people and I doubt seriously anything I say will change your mind. Find it in scripture where it says contraceptives are evil. And when your through researching you can find a real scripture that talks about adding to scripture. Making marriage more difficult than it already is has very little to do with God. And if anyone is leading anyone astray it’s people who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof which is exactly what your doing. Couples get to work out their own issues and the God I serve is a good God not a dictator.
“Hi Jack. It does indeed sound as if you were raised in a type of cult. One of my best friends grew up in a very similar situation where there was a lot of spiritual abuse going on and a lot of control issues/abuse by church leadership, in particular. I know it’s taken her quite a bit of time to work through it with God’s help, and she is 27, unmarried, no kids”
Yeah, I have read a little on cults and my parent’s church seems to fit the bill. One of the most defining characteristics of a cult is the isolation and control of the members, which was very obviously the case in my church. We weren’t really supposed to talk to people outside of the church, except for neccesities such as work and shopping, which was the reason for the homeschooling and cutting ties with family. Which seems to me to be at odds with the most important part of a Christian’s life, spreading God’s word to others. How can you minister if you never speak to anyone?
“ I hope you can work through this and realize the love of God is not at all reflective of what you grew up with. It’s really difficult sometimes for us to separate the religious environment we grew up with from the reality of who God is – after all, we’ve never seen anything else.”
One of the most frustrating things about being raised that way is it is so hard to find God. I am not sure whether the Bible is correct, whether my ideas about Jesus are right, or what it really means to be moral. I am not even completely sure God exists! I feel cheated of a good religious upbringing, and it is hard to not feel jealous when I see people in a loving, biblically based community. My wife goes to a nice Baptist church, and she is a devoted Christian. She was raised in the same church I was, but her and her family broke away from that cult about when I did, partly because the endorsement of child abuse and partly because of theological reasons. They are all happy in a good Bible following church, and I am grateful that my wife has such a supportive family. I wish I could join her and my kids on Sundays but I am very wary and am trying to work through that nervousness.
“I believe you aren’t here by accident, Jack. A lot of us are going to be praying for you and your wife, and I hope that you can find someone to talk with who can help you find your way to the real Jesus Christ, who loves you and sacrificed Himself for you. “A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick, He will not snuff out.” Isaiah 42:3. You are a bruised reed, Jack, but God sees and knows you and loves you. Your worth is immeasurable in His eyes. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
Thank you for sharing your story with us here. It was very courageous. I wish you the very best.”
Thank you for your support. I am actually surprised at the love and caring that people have shown me on this blog, especially when I came in with very unpleasant and uncalled for comments. I would like to believe I have intrinsic worth, it is hard sometimes but I try to remind myself that my children wouldn’t exist if I didn’t. That helps sometimes, I simply cannot imagine a world where they never happened.
I don’t believe I was courageous for telling a little of the abuse that happened on a forum posting under a fake last name (real first name, but I am really to cowardly to use my full name). If I were truly courageous I would go report my parents to the proper authorities, or try to get their church investigated for the cover up of abuses. You people who stand up for what you believe, who sidewalk counsel young girls in abortion clinics, or work to change laws about taking people off life support, you have courage. I can barely keep my life together for my kids. No courage here, only bare survival. Don’t give me credit where none is due.
“ How would you feel then if I said, like you about contraception:
“I know my bible pretty well and know of no scripture that condemns rape. If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her is in Deuteromy 22:28-29 NLT but rape itself is not forbidden anywhere in scripture. And I also believe that people have enough challenges in the day and age we live in without being told what that can and cannot do.” Tell me you would be rightly angered.”
See this is where people like me have a lot of problems understanding what the Bible really means, especially when we have been taught by corrupt officials who twist it for their own use. How do you know when it’s interpreted correctly, and when it is misused? It seems that so many churches interpret moral issues in so many different ways, and I can’t decide who is right or wrong without my own intuition. And my intuition is very broken. So how can I know if I am being taught truly or falsely? It can’t just be a matter of opinion.
Myrtle,
Your attempt to insult me made no sense. I see now I’ve wasted my time in speaking to you as it is fruitless since you are incorrigable and the authority of Biblical interpretation. I have laid out the case you asked for but you choose to beleive what you want- many people do. They are wrong, but it’s the human condition. The sad thing is that Christians are supposed to rise above rationalizing evil things to do what we want.
I’d also think twice on your moral compass when it supports something universally condemned as immoral by all Christians for nearly 2,000 years but then misjudges the character of someone who has held faithful this teaching and espouses it. My character is not the problem. Perhaps it’s your conscience.
Yeah, I have read a little on cults and my parent’s church seems to fit the bill. One of the most defining characteristics of a cult is the isolation and control of the members, which was very obviously the case in my church.
Some ideologies are very cult-like and people find eachother in them- rather than cults finding members. I know people that follow Bill Gothard’s teachings that would do it alone if they couldn’t find other Gothardities- the control is that ideologically deep.
I feel cheated of a good religious upbringing, and it is hard to not feel jealous when I see people in a loving, biblically based community. My wife goes to a nice Baptist church, and she is a devoted Christian. I wish I could join her and my kids on Sundays but I am very wary and am trying to work through that nervousness.
It sounds like you have a good place to start- that you respect this church and its teachings and your wife has found a home there. Perhaps the pastor there could help you work through your nervousness and by going together, you could give your kids the good religious upbringing that you were denied.
If I were truly courageous I would go report my parents to the proper authorities, or try to get their church investigated for the cover up of abuses.
If they are still hurting children, I absolutely think you should report. You are legally, morally and ethically bound to. I know this might pick at scabs and involve digging up so much you want to forget about and that is very very hard, but I bet you wished some 23-year-old had done it when you were a child. You can report anonymously if you need to.
How do you know when it’s interpreted correctly, and when it is misused? It seems that so many churches interpret moral issues in so many different ways, and I can’t decide who is right or wrong without my own intuition. And my intuition is very broken. So how can I know if I am being taught truly or falsely? It can’t just be a matter of opinion.
That’s EXACTLY the conclusion I came to at 26 after 7 happy years of being taught very different things from equally-qualified evangelical preachers. I had a great relationship with Jesus and was very happy, but things didn’t add up. Two people saying contrary things meant someone was right and someone was wrong, but who? I determined that the only way to address this is to go back to Christ and see what He gave us to address this: I beleive He established the Magistereum for this purpose. Otherwise you just hop between denominations of those the closest to what you beleive is right and that puts a lot of faith in yourself. My intuition is broken too- that’s why I needed a shepard.
Jacqueline
I think you said something about me leading people astray. In order to lead someone astray at least in a biblical context you would have to directly oppose scripture or deliberately take it out of context. And my moral compass is doing fine, thank you. Thanks to a church that was kind enough to teach biblical truths and not add or take away from them. I’m not sure if you overlooked what I said in my post but when I mention contraceptives I’m referring to contraceptives that don’t kill embryos. And I’m really o.k. with you not speaking to me because you tend to rattle on about what you believe but cite few scripures to defend your point.
Of course, Myrtle. You’re right. Whoever is teaching you whatever they are teaching you is right and the 30,000+ contradictory Christian doctrines are wrong simply because you say so. We’ve established that you alone know what “Biblical truths” are and you are the authority on all things KJV.
Kel
I was agreeing with your post not disagreeing.
Jacqueline
When you wrong it’s best to admit it. I’m assuming your as capable of reading as all those you consider experts. If you want to make an argument based on biblical principles you have to have scriptures to prove it.
Let’s establish something very important. Sin is sin because it is harmful. It’s deadly. God tells us not to sin not to “micro-manage our lives” but because He loves us doesn’t want us to harm ourselves or others. God doesn’t arbitrarily command that people not steal. He commands it because stealing HARMS people. I am not trying to micro-manage my little girls’ lives when I tell them they can’t have a soda before bed, but because I know the caffeine and sugar will keep them up and ruin their next day at school or play. It’s love. It’s protection. That’s what God’s teachings on sin are: love and protection.
Contraception is sinful because it’s harmful. First of all, most of it kills children. Even those that do not cause harm to people: It harms first and foremost by denying a married couple the priceless gift of an irreplacable child. Barrenness is a curse, not something people should place on themselves on a whim. It harms other children by denying them siblings, cousins, aunt and uncles for future generations. It harms God by forcing Him out of the marriage act and denying Him the making of another soul for the purposes He has. It harms the purity of the conjugal union by perverting it to be only about pleasure and not about a total gift of self to one’s spouse. It harms families by foolishly having them focus on temporal things like financial comfort and free time and trading these petty wants for a lifetime and eternity with another child (after all, comforts last for but a moment, children are the only things God gives you stewardship of on earth that go to Heaven with you). It harms marriages by turning spouses into eachother’s playthings to be used for pleasure, not full human beings who have fertility. It kills communication and creates strife between spouses who disagree on when to have children. It tricks people into thinking that they are God who control life and many find by the time they want to command a baby into existance, that they simply can not and lost years of chances to have a child and may never bear one because they were contracepting. It harms society by telling people that sex can be consequence-free and should not be saved for marriage- and also, it covers up adulterous affairs that people might not otherwise have if they didn’t feel like they could avoid getting caught. I could continue.
God doesn’t oppose birth control to “micro-manage” the lives of married couples. He opposes it because it HARMS people for the above-listed reasons and countless others. If you lack the wisdom to see that you are harming yourself, perhaps you need to be micro-managed.
Myrtle- You haven’t cited any scriptures at all! What scriptures have you cited in favor of barreness? What scriptures have you cited that support having sex but doing it in a manner that makes it fruitless? I’ve given you an example of that and how it turned out badly. You can’t give me an example of God suggesting that couples should choose to curse themselves by denying the blessings of children. Instead, you just spout crap about God not wanting to “micro-manage” or “dictate” a couple’s sex life as if the place where He works His crown jewel of creation- making new human beings, is something that He thinks He shouldn’t interfere with. You give wishy-washy opinions and don’t make a case for anything you say and you want to claim that I don’t support my case? I’ve given your everything you ask for and gone into detail on why your basis is flawed. I can’t do anything but what I’ve done, which is infinitely more than you are capable of so I won’t indulge your further. You’re like talking to an obstinate brick wall. It’s infuriating.
Hey Kel,
I actually saw this discussion of Gen 38 last night and was going to reply with the very verse, Deut 25:6-10 that you mentioned, but in SUPPORT of the fact that Onan was killed for contraception! Think about it- Deut 25 prescribes the punishment for refusal to raise your brother’s children. What is that punishment? It is basically public humiliation. So then why was Onan killed? It doesn’t make any sense for God to kill someone who “merely” violated a law whose punishment was public humiliation. There must have been something else that he did that was so much worse than refusal to raise his brother’s children. This would be the contraceptive act.
The other thing is that Gen 38 referring to contraception is what the early Church Fathers understood this passage to mean as well as the reformers. For example, Clement of Alexandria, though not specifically mentioning Onan or Gen 38, illudes to Onan’s sin when he condemns contarception by refering to it as teh seed being vainly ejaculated. This is in AD 191. “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted””
St Jerome writing in AD 393 says “But I wonder why he [ Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?”
Luther writes “The 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.”
Even John Calvin agrees with this interpretation: “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.”
So not only does it seem to be implicit in scripture, but this is how it had been understood for hundersd upon hundreds of years, even by the reformers. I am not aware of any early Church father who taught that Onan’s sin was NOT contraception. So I would be much more inclined to side with those who were closest to the apostles here.
I really would love to find a abuse victims group geared toward males. It seems like it would be more effective. But I haven’t seen anything like that yet.
Jack, the two options I was able to find are Male Survivor and 1in6. If neither of those help I’d actually suggest contacting your local Planned Parenthood if it offers “Men’s Health” services: they might not be able to assist you directly, but they might be able to refer you to someone who can.
I hope these are useful.
-Lisa
Redoing the link for 1in6.
Ah, Joan. Someone who lacks the basic, secular moral fiber that it takes to oppose killing one’s own children is not someone who is qualified to mock teachings of higher morality. Not killing babies that you make is the first, fundamental lesson of “right and wrong” so higher lessons about preservation of sexual integrity are something you can’t grasp when you don’t have any moral foundation. Do you expect anyone to take your attempts at satire seriously when dismembering your own child is something you support with gusto?
Whatever it takes to avoid sin, Joan. Death over sin.
You got me. I’m an amoral jezebel who couldn’t possibly grasp the totally-consistent-and-not-contradictory-at-all nuance of a doctrine that states that contraception is wrong because it is intended to prevent sex from producing babies, but using this other method to prevent sex from producing babies is totally fine.
Joan,
“contraception is wrong because it is intended to prevent sex from producing babies”
You have to be careful here. This is NOT why contraception is wrong. I believe I stated this above in a post to you already, but in case you missed it, contraception is not wrong because one wishes to not have children. It is in the MEANS by which one goes about not wishing to have children, not the ends. There is nothing wrong with not wanting a child at certain stages of life for certain reasons. The problem with contraception is that it takes an action (the conjugal act) which is naturally ordered towards procreation and willfully thwarts that ends. The problem is engaging in an action and purposefully destroying the very purpose that that act is intended to bring about. With NFP there is no destruction of the act because there is no act. There is simply no contradiction there. The principle is to thwart the purpose of a particular action is disordered. NFP accomplishes this by not participating in the action. So there is simply no thwarting of the action because it simply doesn’t take place. By engaging in the act when you are not fertile, this does not thwart the act. The act naturally is infertile. So there needs to be more care taken in hammering out these issues.
You got me. I’m an amoral jezebel who couldn’t possibly grasp the totally-consistent-and-not-contradictory-at-all nuance of a doctrine that states that contraception is wrong because it is intended to prevent sex from producing babies, but using this other method to prevent sex from producing babies is totally fine.
Apparently. It’s been explained over and over again a million different ways. But like I said, you see nothing wrong with killing a thumb-sucking baby because she’s in your womb (because you PUT HER IN YOUR WOMB) so you giving yourself an “a” in front of moral instead of an “im” is quite generous.
“The problem with contraception is that it takes an action (the conjugal act) which is naturally ordered towards procreation and willfully thwarts that ends.”
But scheduling sex in order to intentionally ensure that pregnancy is not a result does not willfully thwart that end? If a couple was not trying to take the procreative function out of sex, then they would just do it without concern for whether the woman happens to be ovulating or not, and let the pieces fall where they may.
“The problem is engaging in an action and purposefully destroying the very purpose that that act is intended to bring about.”
Again, I don’t see how natural family planning, when used to avoid pregnancy, does not fit this description. If the purpose of the act is reproduction, and the couple is monitoring the woman’s fertility cycle in order to deduce the times at which she is not ovulating and therefore it is possible to have sex and not get pregnant, then how are they not purposefully destroying the reproductive element of sex? The morality of the act here seems to turn on the intention of the persons doing it. By using NFP in this capacity they are willfully entering into the conjugal act in such a way as to thwart its final purpose. This isn’t just comparable to having sex when a woman happens to not be fertile at that time, because the intention to avoid pregnancy would not exist in that capacity.
“But scheduling sex in order to intentionally ensure that pregnancy is not a result does not willfully thwart that end?”
No. Where is the thwarting? What is the action you are taking that destroys the very purpose of the act? It can’t be “not engaging in the act” because this destroys nothing. The way you avoid pregnancy is by NOT engaging in the act. Again, with contraception you are participating in the act, engaging in the act and destroying its natural ends while with NFP, you simply don’t engage in teh act. You certainly aren’t destroying teh purpose of teh act by engaging in it when you are not fertile because you are participating in the act precisely as it should be. The fact that it is naturally infertile is again a difference of means.
“If a couple was not trying to take the procreative function out of sex, then they would just do it without concern for whether the woman happens to be ovulating or not, and let the pieces fall where they may.”
Sure that is an option (one that I encourage), but then you would have to be arguing that it is WRONG to NOT have sex at certain times. How can it be wrong to not engage in teh sexual act? Presumebly none of us are engaging in teh act right now, and there is nothing wrong with that.
“If the purpose of the act is reproduction…”
It has multiple purposes, none of which one can purposefully destroy.
” then how are they not purposefully destroying the reproductive element of sex?”
Again, I ask what is the destructive act? Where is the action of taking something and violating its ends? The ends of teh marital act are never violated when there IS NO marital act being done.
“The morality of the act here seems to turn on the intention of the persons doing it.”
No, it is first and foremost in the actions taken. There is nothing wrong with not wishing to become pregnant. That is the intent. The morality in question has to do with the means.
Bobby, Onan’s sin was that he did not want to provide an heir for his brother. The verses specify that he “knew the child would not be his” according to custom. So, the sin here appears to be the greed BEHIND the spilling of the semen, and the disgracing of his brother’s wife. What Onan did to her was a grave wrong, because he denied her what she desired and needed – an heir for her husband’s estate, and a child to care for her as she aged. Did Onan have other wives with whom he conceived? (I’m asking because I truly don’t know.) Onan’s heart was greedy and lawless, and he clearly had no respect for his brother’s/his wife. And frankly, to say God’s taking someone’s life “doesn’t make any sense,” well – that’s not really for us to say. There are at least a few incidents of someone being killed for things that really make no sense to us in our culture.
As far as I’m concerned, there is a big difference between contracepting because you don’t want to change your lifestyle and contracepting because you know you can’t afford another child (as has been stated here) or because of some sort of physical hindrance.
John Calvin’s comment is ridiculous, btw: For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. You can’t kill someone who never existed.
Question regarding Clement: Is he referring here to masturbation? Isn’t semen “wasted” when practicing NFP? (BTW, I support NFP.)
Hi Myrtle. Yes, I know you were agreeing. I took issue with your statement about those who disagree not knowing Scripture. I think many of us simply have different interpretations of various verses. That doesn’t mean those who disagree with us don’t know their Bible.
What I mean by it doesn’t make any sense for God to take his life if his sin was simply refusal to raise his offspring is that it doesn’t make sense relative to the fact that we are made aware in scripture of the punishment for refusal to raise offspring. Of course God may do what he pleases, but it is unclear why God would punish Onan so harshly if his his was not wanting to provide an heir for his brother, given that we know what the standard punishment for that is. Now you mention that it says that “he knew the child would not be his.” But as you know, the language is tied up with the language of teh spilling
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.
So my point now is that at the very worst, we can say that from this verse, the causation of God’s killing Onan is unclear. A case could be made that it was greed and selfishness, but it is difficult to exclusively rule out teh idea that it was because he spilled his speed. In fact, the former case could and HAS been made by those early interpreters of this verse.
The thing about Calvin though is that even if is reasoning is wrong, the point is that he too (as well as nearly all teh reformers) understood Genesis 38 to refer to the sin of contraception. It is such a strange thing to think that if we were living only 100 years ago, none of this would be an issue between Christians. Every Christian denomination held to such a view.
So I guess my point is that even if I concede nearly all your points, the fact remains that withdrawal being gravely sinful is not excluded from any reading of the text, and we have nearly 1900 years of Christian agreement on this question.
As far as Clement’s quote goes, I am not sure if he is specifically referring to masturbation, but this certainly includes a condemnation of that act. But to answer your question, it seems to me that this “wasted” phrase is used in the early Church to MEAN a contraceptive act. Yes, technically speaking, if we understand wasting of seed in a modern sense, than any sexual act during pregnancy or in general one that does not RESULT in pregnancy would be wasted. But I think to waste seed to the early Church was synonymous with the contraceptive action precisely because that is how a particular contraceptive act is described in Gen 38. So whenever that phrase is used, it calls to mind that passage of Gen 38 and Onan’s sin. That is just my opinion about teh use of teh phrase but I think it makes sense.
Bobby, I don’t disagree that his withdrawal was sinful. Is it possible that if an heir was not produced, that Onan stood to inherit his brother’s estate? Is there documentation out there that you know of which says what happens if an heir to a deceased person’s estate is not produced?
My point is that I don’t believe the contraception was the root problem here. The problem was Onan’s greed, which resulted in at least this act of selfishness on his part (probably his GREATEST act of selfishness, if there were others).
Again, what about sexual intercourse during non-fertile times using NFP? Though this is not “spilling seed,” is it not still technically “wasted” since it will not produce offspring?
Also, if you read Ruth 4, it gives an even better picture of what Onan did and why it was disgraceful. This passage gives us the idea that a kinsman-redeemer had the opportunity to refuse his duty:
Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and sat down there just as the guardian-redeemer[a] he had mentioned came along. Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down.
2 Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. 3 Then he said to the guardian-redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our relative Elimelek. 4 I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you[b] will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.”
“I will redeem it,” he said.
5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the[c] dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
6 At this, the guardian-redeemer said, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.”
7 (Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.)
8 So the guardian-redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it yourself.” And he removed his sandal.
9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown. Today you are witnesses!”
11 Then the elders and all the people at the gate said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the family of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 Through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”
Back to Onan – he was next in line as kinsman-redeemer, and instead of refusing this duty, he took her as his wife and then refused to produce an heir for his brother’s estate. The passage continues: So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When he made love to her, the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a guardian-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16 Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. 17 The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Jack,
I don’t know if it’s too late to jump in here, but I just want to say that I’m deeply sorry for what happened to you. Your upbringing sounds very similar to the upbringing that my fiance had – though his was a bit less severe (minus sexual abuse and his mom didn’t beat him).
But out of all of his siblings, he has certainly turned out the least scarred because he has clung closer to God instead of abandoning the faith. It still scarred him and as a result he refuses to spank our children (when we have them), among other things.
I completely understand your reasons for doing so, however, but I would encourage you to return to Christianity and fall in love with the Savior! He is the only one who can ever truly heal the hurt that your parents caused – and those are deep wounds that aren’t easily healed.
Re: the condom dilemma - I, for one, would say that no you’re not sinning! But I would also challenge you to understand that God will provide for any “surprise children” and if one does come along… Rejoice! as you did you with your daughter. I’m always surprised at how I somehow manage to survive situations that I thought were impossible. God has a lot to offer if you let Him work. :) I am praying for you.
Kel,
I’m not sure if I am not understanding your thesis. It seems that that passage from Ruth is to help establish that Onan had a duty to produce offspring for his brother- this I agree! I agree that refusing to not raise up children for his brother is disgraceful but again, it seems that given the punishment for one’s refusal to do so as laid out in Deut 25, death is far too strict. It seems that if Onan’s wife were to follow the Mosaic law, she would shake the dust from her sandles and slap him or whatever it is prescribed for her to do in Deut 25. But God kills Onan. It is difficult to see why God killed Onan when we see that there is already a punishment set in place for the Jews to themselves carry out if we don’t postulate that he committed some very very grave sin. Maybe it was greed or selfishness as you mentioned above, but the fact that it is a public humiliation which is teh prescribed punishment for refusal to raise offspring on you dead brother’s wife seems to imply that refusal to do such an act is not very very grave.
Again, maybe I’m missing what it is you are trying to argue for with the Ruth passage… sorry I’m a bum…
Bobby, we’re in agreement on what you said in your last post. What I’m trying to say is that it’s not specifically “contraception” that was the reason for God’s condemnation of Onan. It was the fact that he shirked his kinsman-redeemer/kinsman-guardian responsibilities and refused to provide an heir – even ONE heir – for his brother’s estate. The kinsman-redeemer, as shown in Ruth, obtained all the land and wealth of the deceased person, but was also to provide for the widow – and in Onan’s case (maybe in all cases?) to provide an heir. This would mean that Onan would one day LOSE the estate of his brother to the son he would provide his brother’s estate. Hope that clarifies. It sounds like he wanted his brother’s possessions, and wanted to keep them at all costs, so he refused to provide an heir to the estate.
Kel and Bobby
Think about what Onan did the only justification for having intercourse with his brothers wife according to mosaic law was so his brothers’ lineage could continue. So when he has intercourse with his brothers wife this is suppose to be the purpose of the act. So in effect what he done was probably unlawful. They weren’t married he had intercourse with her and then let his seed fall. Maybe in God’s eyes he violated his sister-in-law. And in some instances the punishment for rape was death. Another reason you can’t come to the conclusion that it was solely because he spilled his seed is because the bible says by the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. So you would have to have at least one or two more scriptures to form that conclusion. And because the bible is very clear if God were against the act of spilling seed it would have been part of the mosaic law. What he did was thumb his nose at God and his sister-in-law. And to use mosaic law to achieve his own purpose I think makes the act, if not rape, a considerable violation. Those are my thoughts anyway.
Jacqueline
I didn’t make the claim that contraception was wrong just that contraceptives that kill embryos are wrong. You made the claim and I’m assuming its because you are a christian and form your conclusion according to biblical principle, if so then the burden of proof is on you. I wasn’t intentionally being rude when I said your opinion in that first post to you. I do take issue do with you presuming I’m leading people astray that and the fact that you continually continue to moralize on an issue that is not even an issue in the bible is why I made the statement about me being a pretty good judge of character. I think you’ll find if you study your bible that God places great value on the marriage covenant and to say that sex is just for procreation is error. You should also read where it says in the New Testament that the marriage bed is undefiled. I believe the marriage covenant was created for a lot of different reasons and I firmly believe that sexual pleasure is one of them. Sorry if this rains on your parade.
Gadzooks! EGV, you weren’t kidding, when you mentioned a flood of messages (and a longing for threads)! It’s my turn to swim through dozens of posts, it seems…
I’ll try to get a reply to you (and others) a bit later; at the moment, I’m to harvest rhubarb for my lovely bride… :)
Pardon me for jumping in, here, but there’s a detail or two that needs to be clarified in the “Levirate Marriage” idea…
Myrtle wrote:
Think about what Onan did the only justification for having intercourse with his brothers wife according to mosaic law was so his brothers’ lineage could continue. So when he has intercourse with his brothers wife this is suppose to be the purpose of the act.
Well… it’s the purpose of the *marriage*, anyway… and yes, it’s possible to say that it’s the most urgent purpose of the sexual union of the couple… but by no means does this imply that the union of the spouses (during that sexual union) is somehow unimportant. More on that, in a moment.
So in effect what he done was probably unlawful.
If you mean that Onan’s refusal to let his seed enter his (new) wife, for the purpose of trying for a child, was unlawful, then you’re absolutely right.
They weren’t married he had intercourse with her and then let his seed fall.
(??) How do you get the notion that they weren’t married? Deuteronomy 25:5-6 specifically commands that the man take his brother’s widow as a wife; even the KJV makes that clear: “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.”
Maybe in God’s eyes he violated his sister-in-law.
If you mean to say that he raped her, I really don’t know how you could come to that conclusion, based on the evidence. I’ll agree that, since he had intercourse with her but spilled his seed, he certainly “used” her; but that’s not quite the same thing as you suggest (i.e. having sex with her against her will).
And in some instances the punishment for rape was death.
Hold on, here; without proof, the suggestion of “rape” seems rather a wild accusation, from where I sit. What reasoning and evidence can you suggest to show that he sexually penetrated her unwillingly (i.e. raped her)?
Another reason you can’t come to the conclusion that it was solely because he spilled his seed is because the bible says by the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.
Half a moment…! That requirement was for cases when MEN needed to enact a penalty against another man; but surely you know that God, Himself, slew Onan personally? “And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.” (Genesis 38:10, KJV; compare to verse 7) God certainly doesn’t need 2 or 3 witnesses in order to deliver His Own punishments, does He?
So you would have to have at least one or two more scriptures to form that conclusion.
(??) This is getting more confused by the moment! The Scriptures you cite about “2 or 3 witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6, etc.) are talking about human witnesses… not proof-texts from Scripture! Surely you knew that, already?
And because the bible is very clear if God were against the act of spilling seed it would have been part of the mosaic law.
(!!) Myrtle, you’ve lost me. How on earth do you come to that conclusion? God was certainly against the 1st-Century A.D. practice of “korban” (cf. Mark 7:11), for example, but I see it mentioned nowhere in the Mosaic law; do you? And where do you find the Bible saying that “if God is against something, it must be mentioned in the Mosaic law”? There are dozens of Scriptural examples where that statement is plainly false.
What he did was thumb his nose at God and his sister-in-law.
Well… that’s certainly true, at any rate (i.e. by refusing to have a child by his new wife, and by spilling his seed as his method of doing so; keep in mind that he could also have refused sex altogether… which would still have been evil, but not a double-evil such as this).
And to use mosaic law to achieve his own purpose I think makes the act, if not rape, a considerable violation. Those are my thoughts anyway.
Again: I’d need you to make your case a bit more clear before I could say much more; but I see no evidence of rape, whatsoever, nor do I see any evidence that Onan was not married to Tamar, nor do I see any evidence supporting your other claims about “displeasing God = must be mentioned in Mosaic law”. Can you clarify?
Is this Onan debate still going on?
“And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.”
Onan is in trouble and sinning because he’s not obeying God. Doesn’t matter if he was using NFP, pulled out, condoms, whatever – the issue isn’t contraception – the issue is the law (God) said to do “x”, and Onan said “nope God, not going to do it”
EGV,
You do realise that this your raw opinion, don’t you, and that the Scriptural text doesn’t support it any more strongly than it supports other views (e.g. ours), even without the historical and Tradition-based context?
Paladin -
Come on man – the scripture says – straight out “and RAISE UP AN HEIR TO YOUR BROTHER”
To use it to support NFP while saying contraception is bad would be saying that he could have used NFP and pleased the Lord – which again, is in direct contradiction to the text.
Again – the command is to have a kid, which he denied. Doesn’t matter the method in my book, and I think it is hard to argue otherwise.
EGV wrote:
Come on man – the scripture says – straight out “and RAISE UP AN HEIR TO YOUR BROTHER”
It does, indeed.
To use it to support NFP while saying contraception is bad would be saying that he could have used NFP and pleased the Lord – which again, is in direct contradiction to the text.
Hold on. You’ve fallen into the same error as did Joan: NFP is not a “minimize pregnancy chances only” technique; its application in delaying pregnancy is only one of many facets of NFP, and any reductionist view of “NFP = Catholic contraception” is as ridiculous as saying that the Eucharist is the Catholic version of a mid-morning snack! You have a firm idea of “NFP = avoid children”, which is not at all complete… or accurate, in this case.
Case in point: who, exactly, is saying that defying the Lord with NFP (or with anything else) would have been a good thing? I see no one (save for you) who’s suggested anything of the sort; you seem to have missed the point (i.e. contraception was an additional evil done by Onan… not the only one), completely. We’re pointing out a condemnation of contraception, in this case… not trying to defend NFP, per se. NFP never enters into the situation with Onan, at all, one way or the other.
If you need Scriptural evidence, consider the verses subsequent to the original command in Deuteronomy, itself:
“And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.“ (Deuteronomy 25:7-10, KJV)
Can you, EGV, show me anywhere in these (or surrounding) Scripture verses which mandates the death penalty for refusing to raise up heirs to a brother’s widow? The punishment is humiliation, not death. (In fact, this seems to have “softened” with time; see Ruth 4.) Please tell me you see that?
So: if the offense (of refusing to raise up an heir to one’s dead brother) is not a capital one, but the Lord still killed Onan, is it not reasonable that something else increased the severity of an otherwise “punishment by humiliation” offense, and “upgraded” it to something worthy of death? What exactly, in your mind, separated the sin of Onan from the sin of the man described in Deut. 25:7-10, save for the fact that Onan actually had sex with Tamar, while denying her (and God) the “fruits” of that conjugation (i.e. his seed, by which a child could have been conceived)? Having sex while attempting to thwart the procreation of a child is called “contraception“, last I checked.
Again – the command is to have a kid, which he denied.
Pardon the pun, but: I do not deny that.
Doesn’t matter the method in my book, and I think it is hard to argue otherwise.
See above; I think the situation is rather the opposite, and that your own case is difficult, if not impossible, to defend.
“Having sex while attempting to thwart the procreation of a child is called “contraception“, last I checked.”
wouldn’t that mean that not having sex to thwart having children be “contraception” also?
EGV,
I’m with you on this one – the whole story of Onan, I believe can’t be construed to somehow say contraception is bad, but rather that God knows what we do in private and don’t disobey Him.
Just my humble opinion.
Mrs. Arnott wrote:
wouldn’t that mean that not having sex to thwart having children be “contraception” also?
Not to derail the Scripture-specific point that I was making with Myrtle and EGV, but: no. First, the commonly accepted meaning of the word “contraception” (and the definition which we were using here, when you came along) is as an abbreviation for “artificial contraception”, i.e. interference with sexual intercourse so as to attempt to render the sexual act sterile. Second, abstaining from sex is neither “pro-ception” (forgive the coined term) nor contraception; barring any evil intent, it’s simply neutral… or else every husband and wife would be sinning during every waking moment that they were not indulging in the marital embrace!
For details, read some of the above comments; the idea of “Isn’t NFP simply contraception without latex?” has been addressed, already.
i understand that but by the time i get down to the bottom post i forget the rest (to many kids and A.D.H.D lol) sorry
LibertyBelle wrote:
the whole story of Onan, I believe can’t be construed to somehow say contraception is bad, but rather that God knows what we do in private and don’t disobey Him.
Well… it’s certainly true that God knows what we do in private (though, wasn’t Tamar in the room with him? That’s not exactly “private” in the sense of “no other human knows about it”…), and it’s very true to say that we shouldn’t disobey Him. But there’s disobedience, and there’s disobedience, you know; steal a neighbour’s animal, and God punishes that disobedience by making you replace the animal, perhaps four- or five-fold, as God’s Law clearly says (cf. Exodus 22:1, etc.); refuse to raise up heirs for your deceased brother, and God punishes your disobedience with permanent, public humiliation, as God’s Law clearly says (cf. Deuteronomy 25:7-10). But you’ll note that not every act of disobedience is punished with death… right? Doesn’t the severity of punishment make a difference, when trying to figure out what lessons to take from these? I, for one, would think that death-penalty-worthy offenses should be considered more grave than are “pay-back-four-fold” or “endure humiliation” offenses… don’t you?
:) My sympathies, Mrs. Arnott! However, the comments will be there for you, whenever you feel ready for them!
:) My sympathies, Mrs. Arnott! Read at your leisure…
Test
Pardon me, all… my posts seem to be disappearing! This is a test…
H
Paladin –
At best, you have a theory. We don’t have much on the life of Onan. It could be a lot of things that necessitated the extra penalty – we simply don’t know. What I’m saying is, it is a pretty big assumption to deduce that, and even so, to then turn it into a mandate with little to no other data – it just doesn’t add up.
If the Catholics want to interpret that way, more power to them – but there seems to be simply not enough evidence to say that this is an important component of Christian living.
Paladin,
Of course I agree. God doesn’t go about striking us all dead for sinning and I do read the situations where the death penalty was meted out with special consideration.
But as Ex-GOP says, I simply don’t agree that your interpretation is necessarily the ultimate correct answer. It may be – but I don’t think so. I’m not so sure that based on that passage alone, to borrow EGV’s phrase, is enough to be an important component of Christian living.
PS Ex-GOP…. if you’re no longer GOP, what are you? If you don’t mind my asking for I, too, am and ex-GOP if you will…
LibertyBelle -
Building off what you said, yes – and I don’t believe God is into entrapment. If He thinks this is a big deal to adhere to, we’d see further evidence of that.
In a nutshell – father of three, Christian, voted GOP in my first few elections, couldn’t stomach Bush anymore (voted for him first term) – was fine and liked the “compassionate conservative” edge – but over the last five years, in the effort to reclaim the conservative role, the GOP has thrown aside the “compassionate” role. I do vote for some GOPers at the state level, but mostly vote Democrat now. I don’t like the Dems support of abortion. I don’t like the GOP’s cutting of aid to the poor and elderly. I’m willing to put aside the dislike on the abortion issue since all the politics of the situation involve moving the line back and forth a bit – nothing concerning bans. Would support a ban in a massive social overhaul that included expansion of health care, education, and a total support of life (conception through death). I see no movement towards this at all.
I’ve enjoyed this thread though, so I’m only going to reply to you Liberty in regards to this off-topic political rambling – others can catch me on other threads. Paladin and I have gone round this before. We argue a lot. I have a feeling we’d be good friends if we actually knew each other.
Paladin
The scripture I was referring to is 2 Corinthians 13:1. and the translation according to the New living Translation is, This is the third time I am coming to visit you and as the Scriptures say ” The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. The apostle Paul in this scripture is speaking to the corinthians they are looking for a sign. He speaks to them twice in person and once he addresses this same matter in writing. So this lets you know the word can be established by a person or by written word. And by word I’m referring to the word of God. This is what I’ve been taught that there is no scripture of private interpretation in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. This simply means that one scripture reference will not do if you want to prove something in the bible you have to have at least two or three other scriptures that say the same thing. Onan violated her in the sense that the intent of the marriage was to raise up an heir, to continue his brothers lineage. This was understood by both Onan and Tamar. When he chose to ignore the reason for the marriage his intent was not right. Her right to carrying on her husbands legacy was so serious that when she decieved Judah he had to overlook that because he knew her rights and respected them unlike Onan his son. If you notice in the scriptures before this one it says that Omans’ brother was killed because he was evil in the sight of God. So maybe that is why he was destroyed too. Anyway according to this same scripture if you want to make a valid argument that contraceptives that don’t kill the embryo and/or preborn are wrong you have to cite two or more scriptures from the bible to make your case. I also don’t see how NFP cannot be viewed as a preventative measure.
“This simply means that one scripture reference will not do if you want to prove something in the bible you have to have at least two or three other scriptures that say the same thing.”
So out of curiosity, do you have two or three scripture references that say that “one scripture reference will not do if you want to prove something in the bible you have to have at least two or three other scriptures that say the same thing”?
And Jacqueline brought up polygamy. Can you show two or three places where the scripture explicitly condemns polygamy?
“When he chose to ignore the reason for the marriage his intent was not right.”
You seem to not be willing to interact with the punishment for this in Deuteronomy 25. As Paladin pointed out, the punishment was a public humiliation. Why did he get the death penalty? It will do no good to continue to talk about brother’s lineage, marital rights, etc etc. We are well aware of that theory and it is sorely lacking in light of the fact that the punishment does not fit teh crime.
Suppose one of my house rules is that if you don’t eat your dinner, then you get nothing to eat all night. You learn that last night my daughter didn’t eat her dinner and hence, I kicked her out of the house. Would you really be justified in believing that the primary reason for me kicking her out of the house was because she didn’t eat her dinner? But maybe if I said that “last night my daughter burned down our kitchen so that she wouldn’t have to eat her dinner and hence I kicked he rout of the house” we have a little bit better of an idea. At least Kel conjectured some other reason that God killed Onan; selfishness or whatever. But to simply continue to chalk up Onan’s death to business about raising his brother’s lineage without ever addressing the fact that it makes no sense in light of Deuteronomy 25 is quite telling.
“I also don’t see how NFP cannot be viewed as a preventative measure.”
Myrtle, how many times have we said that the problem with contraception is not in the ends but in the means? So yes, NFP is a “preventative measure.” No one claims that the problem with contraception is that it is “preventative.”
(Testing my ability to post, which was temporarily off-line!)
Ah, so we have a “like” option, now? :) Intriguing…
Ah… I see! There’s a “newer comments” arrow/link that seems to have appeared!
Terribly sorry to have littered the blog with detritus, Jill! I’ll try to clean up after myself, from now on; please feel free to delete some or all of the miscellany of mine, above!
Hey Paladin! :) The newer comments arrow appears when our posts get over 200 comments, and it adds a new page. That’s been around for a while, but not too many posts hit that 200 mark. :)
EGV wrote:
At best, you have a theory.
If we took only what I mentioned thus far (i.e. the discrepancy in Deut. 25, re: humiliation vs. death penalty, and a few other bits), and nothing else, you might be right. However, nowhere did I say that the condemnation of contraception rested solely on Deuteronomy 25; I offered it because you (and some others) were insisting on Scriptural evidence… and I offered it to you. I also point out the complete *lack* of Scriptural evidence for your own position (i.e. that God is indifferent about the issue of contraception); you note that, yes?
Remember how, earlier, I explained how I need not hold myself to your extra-Biblical requirement of “Sola Scriptura”? I base my conviction (i.e. that contraception is an objective moral evil, and a grave one, since it distorts one of the most sacred acts and powers entrusted to man) on Scripture (see above), on the unchanging and unchangeable Tradition of the Church (capital “T” deliberate, to distinguish from mere custom, or even from Church disciplines/policies, which can change at need), on the unanimous condemnation of the practice by all of Christendom (as others have already mentioned, yes?) for almost 2000 years (until 1930, when the Lambeth Conference in England allowed it for the first time), on its predicted (and realized) destructive effects (see “Humanae Vitae”, by Pope Paul VI), on pure reason (in consideration of the fragmentation of the human person that it involves), and in view of the ultimate end/destiny of man (re: the Theology of the Body, by Blessed John Paul II), to say nothing of the unchanging and unchangeable doctrines of the Church Magisterium. Balance that with the desire of moderns, who wish to use contraception mainly in order to indulge in “sex on demand”, rather than train themselves in the self-sacrifice needed to abstain from a desired pleasure, for the sake of the beloved, and for the sake of a greater good. Entire libraries have been written on this idea, EGV, and I cannot possibly boil it all down into a “sound-byte” for you that’s at all adequate; suffice it to say that, if we do not love freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully, we do not love as Christ loves, and we are not training ourselves for Heaven (which we should be doing with all our hearts). Contraception drives a stake through the very heart of such love, and taints it with self-indulgence, self-centredness, and lust (i.e. self-gratification at the expense of another person… even if the other person consents).
We don’t have much on the life of Onan. It could be a lot of things that necessitated the extra penalty – we simply don’t know.
I hope I’ve shown, at very least, that it’s wildly unlikely for Onan’s death to be attributable SOLELY to his failure to raise up an heir for his deceased brother (as you and Myrtle had been contending)… yes?
What I’m saying is, it is a pretty big assumption to deduce that, and even so, to then turn it into a mandate with little to no other data – it just doesn’t add up.
That is, in fact, why I use a wealth of other data (see above), and not merely that isolated Scripture verse. You may have noted that, in earlier comments, I explicitly rejected the idea of the adequacy of “Scripture proof-texting”; I gave you the Scripture only to show you the inadequacy of the “Onan died only because he didn’t raise up an heir” idea. Does that clarify? After all my efforts to steer you away from “Sola Scriptura”, can you now accept (with all due respect) the idea that I wouldn’t embrace it, myself?
Hi, Kel!
:) Ah. I should have known. “Never attribute to novelty what can just as easily be attributed to my own ignorance.”
I see those that dispute the immorality of contraception do so by their own opinion and personal interpretation of scripture. Even if I firmly disagree with something held firm as moral teaching in the Church, I tend to doubt myself rather than spiritual authorities as I seek to solidify my beliefs. Spiritual authorities at the LEAST would make me think twice. I have situations where I thought twice and became more steadfast in my conviction and times when re-examining it has led me to learn that I was wrong.
The bottom line is that we have to ask ourselves how much stock we put in our own understanding vs. 2000 years of Christians studying and giving their lives for the Word? I sincerely doubt that fabulous technological advances have challenged our interpretation of Onan’s sin. It’s personal speculation now like it was then- but then, they were in agreement and had a greater understanding of cultural context than Americans in 2011 in front of their computers.
Are we going to believe a newfangled interpretation that has born rotten fruit or the interpretation taught by the Apostles, reaffirmed by the reformers and held as moral truth until only a generation ago?
I’m sticking with the Apostles on this one. God did not change His mind on this.
Jack-
If you are still reading- please shoot me an email at jacquefromtexas@yahoo.com. Since you are only working part-time and have two dependents, you can subsidize your income with grants and attend college for free if you still would like to do so. The part of the time you’re not working, you’d be in school, but the grants would provide income. Let’s talk about it.
EGV wrote:
Paladin and I have gone round this before. We argue a lot. I have a feeling we’d be good friends if we actually knew each other.
:) You know what? As much as you exasperate me, sometimes, I’m rather certain that we would be! I have quite a number of friends who differ wildly with me on a host of issues, in fact, and we still get on famously (though we rarely talk politics, and only talk religion if everyone can keep a cool head).
Perhaps you could swing by the perennially-planned-but-not-yet-actualized “Wisconsin Stanek Barbecue”? (Or Illinois, if Jill would like to partake! :) )
…and, to second Jacqueline’s offer, Jack: if you ever need pro-bono math help in college (or for your younglings, when they come of age), let me know; I’m rather addicted to the stuff (as are a few fellow math-philes, on this board… *pointing surreptitiously to Bobby Bambino*)…
Paladin
So what would scriptural reference be in regards to supporting the use of contraception? People having sex for pleasure without the reference of trying solely for children? Older people having sex? Does it need to reference the trojan brand specifically?
Again – it is great you are Catholic, and I love that there’s a great tradition of formal documents talking about positions (of the catholic church). I’m not Catholic – so I don’t care a whole lot on it – I approach it as if I’m on an island, and all I have it my Bible. Would I read through and make the claim that using any sort of contraception is sinning? No way – no how. I just don’t see how any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, and even if they did, I don’t see how they would say “you know, this is real fundamental to the Christian lifestyle”.
So I continue to say, good for you and those in your church – if this is something that you feel convicted about, than I say you abstain, follow the guidelines laid out before you and go forth and do what you gotta do (or don’t it in this case).
Biblically, I don’t see enough evidence to claim this is a big deal – if it is, we’d have more teaching on it. And the issue hasn’t had enough visibility through 2000 years to lay a ton of faith in that, and even so, it is man interpreting the word of God. Again, the Bible is my guide. I like interpretation – it adds to the picture and helps us understand, but I believe that God is a not a God who’s going to put in easily misunderstood or hidden provisions and hold us accountable to those things. That would not be a God I would choose to serve.
When I hear about cases like this, one of my first thoughts is gratitude that they didn’t kill the child…
That would not be a God I would choose to serve.
That’s a disturbing statement.
Paladin
I never said it was because of his inability to raise up an heir. His crime was his deception. The purpose of the marriage was to raise up an heir he purposefully denied Tamar what was the intended purpose of the marriage. If he did it purposefully then that in my opinion is a violation if his actions were premeditated. Paladin, I’m assuming your basing your argument on biblical principle what two or three scriptures do you have that prove that scripture prohiblts contraception. And of course Onans brother was also killed because he was considered evil as well. So in addition to deception maybe Onan was guilty of something else as well.
Bobby Bambino
In your opinion it’s severly lacking in mine its not. The purpose was to raise up an heir he intentionally twarted the process. It’s not the method he chose it’s the fact that the marriage was based on the understanding that this would be the result of their marriage because of his deception in my opinion she was violated and no telling what else he did. The fact that he used the pretext of raising up an heir for his brother and instead pursued his own agenda I think is why the punishment was so severe. It might not have been rape but it was a violation because his intent was not honorable. Their are parallel scriptures that agree with 2 Corinthians 13:1. This is completely off thread but because you in jest I’m assuming gave the analogy of your daughter be thankful it’s just a scenario. In the new apartment we moved in we have a ghost who turns the knobs on our stove. So I actually have to turn the breaker off that controls the stove. I don’t think we’re going to agree though on why God smote Onan whatever the reason I would think it had to be for a reason that was consistent with scripture.. When it’s argued that the punishment didn’t meet the crime you have to remember that the person who had the first option to marry Ruth didn’t so there was no deception. Onan married Tamar and then attempted to deceive her and God and used the mosaic law to accomplish his treachery.
Ex-Gop
I find your statement to be a very accurate conclusion to biblical teachings. God has no hidden agenda. The Old Testament and the New Testament teach that.
Jack
And some colleges also have work study programs where you can get part time employment on campus. Employers on campus tend to be more flexible with your work schedule because they know your in school.
In the new apartment we moved in we have a ghost who turns the knobs on our stove.
Hi Myrtle,
I just read a book you might be interested in entitled Holy Ghosts: Or How a (Not-So) Good Catholic Boy Became a Believer in Things That Go Bump in the Night.
We too had a little prankster visiting us for awhile but had to send him on his way.
Hey Jacqueline, I sent you an email, thank you for your offer of help. I have been thinking about getting back into school since they cut my hours last year, just wasn’t sure where to start.
And Paladin, thanks for your offer of help, but math would be the least of my concerns. I am actually pretty good at math. When I was sixteen I was teaching myself Integral Calculus! Homeschooling did have its advantages!
Thanks everyone for your support, Myrtle, Liberty, and anyone else I haven’t had a chance to thank. I am surprised at the care and love, haven’t experienced a lot of that in a religious community. :D
Praxedes
I actually think its kind of cool to have a ghost. I think it’s someone in my family. And what is so unusual is that one of the things that helped me to decide to move in this apartment was the stove. It’s kind of unusual too it looks like a stove that my parents had when I was younger but it’s new. I explained to the ghost that as long as they behave themselves there welcome here.
Jack
It’s a long road to healing when you’ve been abused but it is something that is completely possible. Did you know that homeschoolers tend to score higher on college entrance exams? That’s awesome that you taught yourself Integral Calculus. That job situation might have been a blessing in disguise. Have you though about teaching math?
“It’s a long road to healing when you’ve been abused but it is something that is completely possible. Did you know that homeschoolers tend to score higher on college entrance exams? That’s awesome that you taught yourself Integral Calculus. That job situation might have been a blessing in disguise. Have you though about teaching math?”
Yeah, I have heard that homeschoolers tend to score across the board better than public schooled children. My mom didn’t do too bad at teaching us, I just surpassed her pretty early and was basically independent study by the time I was fourteen or so. I was bored a lot. :D
I don’t think I want to teach, I will probably go into chemistry or physics, work in research. I like the hard sciences. Math is pretty integral to those specialties though.
Prax and Myrtle-
Sounds like demons to me. When you die, you don’t stay on Earth and you also don’t come back to pull pranks on the living. Thinking these things are innocuous is an occult practice that could open you up for worse demonic attacks. I’d anoint your house and exorcise that mess with quickness.
“Math is pretty integral to those specialties though. ”
Buh dum ching!
:) Math whiz and pun-ster… Jack, I *knew* there was something I liked about you!
…and by the way: homeschoolers rock! (I say this as a high school teacher…)
EGV wrote:
So what would scriptural reference be in regards to supporting the use of contraception?
I haven’t the foggiest, since I know of none (and you’ll note that I included “Divine indifference to contraception”, as well as “Divine approval of contraception”, as possibilities for which I’d seen no Scriptural evidence at all). Hypothetically, if the Bible were to show the use of primitive condoms (with sheep-skin, or what-have-you–artificial contraception, as a concept, is quite ancient) without any Scriptural reprobation, or even with Divine approval (e.g. “…and the Lord was pleased…”), then that might work. As I say, I haven’t the foggiest.
People having sex for pleasure without the reference of trying solely for children?
I thought I (and others) already explained: it’s not at all necessary (and quite forbidden) to “try only for children”; that’s merely another type of “using” another person as an object for one’s own ends. The unitive and procreative ends of marriage cannot be separated intentionally without doing violence to both (and without making the act morally illicit); isn’t that clear, by now?
Older people having sex?
Could you please explain what would be morally problematic with that?
Does it need to reference the trojan brand specifically?
:) Cute. One might ask for a particular brand of sheep-skin, or formula for contraceptive potion, or what-have-you… </tongue-in-cheek>
Again – it is great you are Catholic, and I love that there’s a great tradition of formal documents talking about positions (of the catholic church).
It’s not simply that. I refer to the entire 2000-year history of Christianity, as a whole (to which you admittedly belong), which has condemned contraception from the earliest days, until 1930–a mere 81 years ago. The early Protestants were all unanimous in their opposition to (or silence on) contraception, the Orthodox Churches maintain their condemnation of it, and the Catholic Church has never ceased to condemn it. Does not the fact that “allowances” for contraception within some Christian circles are so recent make you even the tiniest bit leery of thinking that “everything is quite all right”? Consider that abortion itself is now tolerated in several Christian circles in recent times, as well (e.g. ELCA, etc.)… as was expected, after acceptance of artificial contraception.
I’m not Catholic – so I don’t care a whole lot on it
You don’t need to be Catholic in order to see that artificial contraception is wrong. You don’t need to change your denomination, one jot, in order to repudiate and fight it. I said as much, already.
I approach it as if I’m on an island, and all I have it my Bible.
That method is rife with risk (and depends completely on mere opinion, in all Scriptural cases where the particular verse/passage is in any way unclear… and there are many such places, as St. Peter makes quite plain: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16, RSV) You’ll also note that such error is not simply trivial (i.e. of the “oops! Oh, well, no harm done!” variety), but can lead to one’s very destruction?
Would I read through and make the claim that using any sort of contraception is sinning? No way – no how.
Would you come to the conclusion (borrowing an example from Jacqueline) that polygamy was wrong? (Heavens, look at the many examples where it was practiced with Divine approbation!) Would you come to the conclusion that human cloning is wrong? What of torture (used many times, and even referenced without condemnation by Our Lord, in one of His parables, cf. Matthew 18:34)? How would you know (borrowing an example from Bobby) that rape of a maiden was any great offense, given the light penalty (cf. Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Surely you see that mere personal interpretation (by you, or by me) would be at great risk of going astray, on any of these? A simple, “I’ve read the Bible, and I therefore believe [x]” is really inseparable from raw opinion, in many cases.
I just don’t see how any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, and even if they did, I don’t see how they would say “you know, this is real fundamental to the Christian lifestyle”.
Did you miss the part where I described the inadequacy of “Scripture Alone“? Even Protestants refer back to the writings and guidance of authoritites; what makes you think that your judgment (even about discerning which things are “fundamental”, and which are not) is infallible?
Biblically, I don’t see enough evidence to claim this is a big deal – if it is, we’d have more teaching on it.
See above. Do you consider abortion, human cloning, torture and rape to be “big deals”?
And the issue hasn’t had enough visibility through 2000 years to lay a ton of faith in that,
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain your reasoning, on that one. Would you seriously expect, for example, a Biblical condemnation of embryonic stem-cell research? The technology hadn’t existed for most of Christian history; but its “lack of visibility through 200 years” says nothing against the fact that the practice is evil; don’t you agree?
and even so, it is man interpreting the word of God.
Of course… but you do the very same thing, every time you pick up the Scriptures (as do I)! I’m not sure how you could mention this as any sort of “bad mark” against the condemnation of contraception, aside from appealing to raw opinion (i.e. “I happen not to agree!”)…
Again, the Bible is my guide. I like interpretation – it adds to the picture and helps us understand,
Friend, if you seriously think that you (personally), along with every last Christian who ever lived, do NOT rely on “interpretation” when reading the Scriptures, I’d invite you to think again. Are you using a different definition of “interpretation” than I am…?
but I believe that God is a not a God who’s going to put in easily misunderstood or hidden provisions and hold us accountable to those things.
See 2 Peter 3:15-16, again. Now, I’ll grant you one thing: I agree completely that God would not allow us to be “cut adrift” without some surety by which we could know the fundamentals and essentials of the Faith, especially as it pertains to our salvation! God would not allow us to be lost forever in a morass of opinions and contradictions; there must be recourse to infallibility, somewhere, somehow. (Fr. Daniel Lyons, the author of “Christianity and Infallibility: Both or Neither”, put it roughly this way [paraphrasing]: “To say that God entrusted His Revelation to us (by which we are saved) without providing an infallible way to preserve, interpret and transmit that content, is to suggest that God is indifferent to the damnation of the vast majority of His children from all ages of the world.”)
That would not be a God I would choose to serve.
I’m afraid you may not have as much liberty in that matter as you might wish, friend. I might not “wish to serve or obey” the law of gravity, but I obey it, nonetheless. We are free to say, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it? (cf. John 6:60)” and walk away from Him… but we are not free to redefine, rewrite, or dismiss Him or His Message, according to our tastes (or anything else).
What is it about this site that brings all the math nerds out in droves? JK! I speak in envy as I was NOT blessed with math genes though my father was an engineer and a mathematical whiz!
Hopefully Jack the good people here will point you in the right direction so you can use that obvious super intelligence to get a great job. I feel very encouraged for you. And I am glad you sense the true, genuine love and concern of the people here. Maybe someday you might tentatively reach out to God. He will never let you down. People do… but never God.
Paladin
You make reference to a couple of things like NFP for reasons other than simply delaying kids (that should be an interesting read…) Anyways, with a busy life, I’ll freely admit I read the comments directed at me, and glaze over others – so on some of those you referenced, I haven’t read them.
Before we keep going though, I just want to make sure that we’re clear of the positions here so that we’re not arguing the details while maybe agreeing with some of the top principles.
My point: I believe two Christians can disagree on the matter of contraception and those two people can still feel confident in their faith and salvation. I feel that the Bible is not explicit enough on it for it to be a dividing issue.
Your point: You feel that this is a matter of salvation, and a Christian must agree that contraception is wrong, and if they use contraception, they are actively sinning.
Is that correct?
Hi Ex GOP.
It’s funny… you’ve been on this blog for quite some time and I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. Nice to finally do so. You wrote a question to Paladin, but I’d like to take a stab at it
“You feel that this is a matter of salvation, and a Christian must agree that contraception is wrong, and if they use contraception, they are actively sinning. Is that correct?”
We would make the distinction between objectively sinning and one’s subjective belief that they are not sinning. So EX-GOP, I’m sure you believe that treating women as things is wrong. Now suppose someone grew up in a culture where the norm was to treat women as things and someone who was well meaning and sincerely trying to do what is right REALLY believed that it was morally permissible to treat women as things (or insert some other sin here). Well objectovley speaking, he is still sinning, even if he doesn’t know it. He may not be CULPABLE for it (that is only for God to decide) but a sin is a sin even if we aren’t aware of it. Whether or not it “counts against us” is a matter for God to decide. So bearing in mind that we Catholics (and many other Protestants) do believe that the use of contraception is a sin, then it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to understand that we believe that those who use contraception are objectovley committing a sinful act. But again, we must stress that we have NO IDEA about their subjective state of mind or the state of their soul. Since any grave sin (as contraception is) cuts one off from God’s love (again, this is Catholic theology so you wouldn’t necessarily agree on this point), it follows that those who engage in such an act place themselves in grave danger, so in that sense, we are concerned for their salvation out of love. If we hated them or didn’t care about them, we wouldn’t say anything. But I can’t stress enough teh fact that while contraception is an objectovley grave sin, that does not mean that a Catholic can thereby conclude that a “contraceptor” is going to hell. It is God alone who judges the heart. Hope that makes sense. God love you.
Jacqueline @ 6:39 am
Hi Jacqueline, You most certainly could be right that it was demon(s) and I shouldn’t have used the term ‘little prankster’ to explain what was going on in our home. Now that things have returned to normal, it is easy to downplay the seriousness of this issue. At the time we didn’t take what was going on lightly nor think it was innocuous and the book I refer to doesn’t take these issues lightly either.
I talked with our priest and nun and we had our house blessed. It was made clear that all in our home are followers of Christ and He is the Authority here. All has been quiet and I want it to stay that way.
I explained to the ghost that as long as they behave themselves there welcome here.
Myrtle, I personally don’t think that whatever is messing with your stove is behaving itself (dangerous) and agree with Jacqueline that your house should be anointed and/or exorcised.
Bobby – spot on.
Since any grave sin (as contraception is) cuts one off from God’s love
This is a shocking statement for me to read.
Oops, you know what? That isn’t right. Sorry, it makes it seem like I am saying that if we sin gravely, God does not love us anymore. That is NOT correct, and I was sloppy to write it that way. It should just say that if we sin gravely, then we cut ourselves off from God in the sense that we are saying “no” to God, and God will respect that we don’t want to be with him, and we will go to hell. That is what I meant by that. Again, there is clearly the subjective aspect about “if we don’t KNOW taht it is grave, how can we REALLY be rejecting God?” which again plays into teh whole subjective aspect of sin which only God knows.
Does that clear that up Kel?
Yes, that helps, thanks!
I mean, Catholics do often use this phrase “cut us off from the love of God” but it basically means what I said above. I can see, though, that some may think we mean that God does not love us anymore when we sin, which is NOT correct… at least, that is my guess as to what bothered you about the phrase, Kel, as it should have if that is what I meant…
Yes, that’s what bothered me about it. I interpreted it as “God does not love us anymore when we sin.” Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for the clarification – when WE sin, WE cut ourselves off from God. But we are always welcomed back, and God always still loves us… like the prodigal son, when we repent and return God is still waiting for us with open arms. good catch. ;)
EGV wrote:
Before we keep going though, I just want to make sure that we’re clear of the positions here so that we’re not arguing the details while maybe agreeing with some of the top principles.
All right.
My point: I believe two Christians can disagree on the matter of contraception and those two people can still feel confident in their faith and salvation.
I may need you to define some terms, for me. First: being “confident in faith” and being “confident in salvation” are two very different things; I’m familiar with the first, in my own life (at least, in the sense of being “secure” in my faith), but the second is rather more nebulous, and I’ll need to know what you mean by it before I can comment much further.
I feel that the Bible is not explicit enough on it for it to be a dividing issue.
Well… you did catch my comments, re: critical things (I’m not quite sure what you mean by “dividing issue”) not necessarily being explicitly addressed in the Bible (e.g. rape, abortion, human cloning, torture)? A lack of explicit mention doesn’t seem to settle the matter, one way or the other; some grave evils are implicit in Scripture (e.g. abortion), and some venial evils are explicit (e.g. stealing a sheep).
Your point: You feel that this is a matter of salvation, and a Christian must agree that contraception is wrong, and if they use contraception, they are actively sinning. Is that correct?
Not quite. Sin requires three things (as I mentioned earlier): an evil act, a sufficient awareness of the evilness of that act, and a sufficiently free choice to do it anyway. (If the evil being done is a grave [serious] evil, the sin is mortal, rather than venial, and one stands in grave danger of Hell if such a [mortal] sin is committed, without subsequent repentance.)
As Bobby mentioned: it’s quite possible for someone to commit an act which is “objectively” sinful (i.e. it’s an objective moral evil) while not “sinning” in the subjective sense (i.e. if they lack sufficient knowledge or freedom, their culpability [blameworthiness] is reduced, or even cancelled. I do argue, however, that contraception is an *objective* moral evil (i.e. it’s evil, regardless of who agrees or disagrees, likes or dislikes, votes for or doesn’t vote for, or even knows or doesn’t know), all contrary religous (or other) opinions/positions notwithstanding… and that the matter, which involves human sexuality (one of the most grave and fundamental powers of the human person), is serious enough to impact salvation directly (i.e. someone who knowingly and freely chooses to partake of it, despite a sufficient awareness of its evil, would sin mortally… and would, if unrepentant at death, be damned thereby).
No one (including me) is saying that God is not merciful, or that God will somehow hold people responsible for the impossible (i.e. not avoiding what they innocently took to be morally licit), as I made clear, above. But I firmly assert that contraception is gravely serious (above and beyond “sin, in general”, which is serious enough), and that it is not a matter to be treated with nonchalance or indifference, at all.
Paladin/Bobby -
We come from VERY different church backgrounds. It appears both of you are Catholic. I grew up in the ECC (Evangelical Covenant Church), where essentially, prospective members are asked two questions:
– Do you confess Jesus as your Savior and promise to follow him as your Lord?
– Do you accept the scriptures, OT and NT, as the word of God and the only perfect rules for faith, doctrine, and conduct.
I respect your upbringing, the Catholic church, and all you folks do. i really do. My job here isn’t to criticize the Catholic church and what you folks stand for.
In my life, I look to the Bible. I believe that there are great writers and theologians that can help paint a clearer picture and help break down complex tasks.
I also believe that there are a lot of things the scripture is not clear on, and there is freedom in Christ to disagree on these things. I believe that division is a bad thing, and that Christians should be MUCH quicker to identify things that are decisive but not critical, and move forward in unity with an agreement to disagree.
I believe contraception (in general, I understand the issues with some hormonal contraception acting like an abortion) is a decisive, yet non-fundamental issue in Christianity and in the Bible. The only texts are vague – the only arguments are based on history and man’s logic, not God’s word.
So again, if this is an issue that Catholics believe that this is an issue that division is warranted because it is fundamental to belief, than by all means, preach and counsel within your churches. From the Bible’s lack of clarity on the issue, and the divergent views across denominations, I simply can’t find any evidence that this is an issue that is a clear cut sin and an issue that warrants division over.
Hope all is well and hope you both are enjoying your weekends.