1. Hannity's arrogance aside, I think the Catholic church is wrong on the contraception issue. Can the author point to the relevant Scriptures that demonstrate this doctrine?

   Comment by Mountain Man | March 15, 2007

2. I agree with Hannity. I personally am a big fan of Sean Hannity. I think there is a definite distinction between abortion and artificial birth control. There can be nothing conceivably wrong with choosing birth control. THere is no point when life will start so there is no soul being purged.

   Last night was a good example of how the Catholic Church must get with the times. They don't let their priests marry, which is crazy (THat is why there are so many ex-catholic Episcopal priests), and they keep people from making the smart choice of birth control.

   We no longer need this medieval doctrine that the Catholic church would unrealistically expect everyone to follow.

   Comment by Mournblade | March 15, 2007

3. Mountain Man asked, "Can the author point to the relevant Scriptures that demonstrate this doctrine?"

   Here is a start:

   "The president of the American Birth Control League is Mrs. Margaret Sanger, and she and several of her associates also edit a periodical in the interest of her theories. . . . The Bible very emphatically does not sanction movements of this kind. Ps. 127, 3-5; Ps. 128, 3; 1 Tim. 2, 15; 5, 14, and other passages are in force today as they ever were."

   Concordia Cyclopedia, Concordia Publishing House (1927), p. 84.

   "The majority report of the Committee on Birth Control appointed by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America states that the Church and the Bible are 'silent upon the subject.' This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: 'Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.' (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to 'be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.' (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: 'Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.' The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: 'Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.' . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

   Walter A. Maier, a professor at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Concordia Theological Seminary and voice of the Lutheran Hour radio program.

   Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 15, 2007

4. This is kind of shocking, I never figured Sean Hannity for a "cafeteria" Catholic.

   Comment by Joe Lammers | March 15, 2007

5. As a very old fashioned "fish eating" Catholic I have had issues with some of the church teachings. The birth control issue has been one that is largely not followed throughout the world, however it is much revered by our "celibate" clergy. I can see the creation of an American Orthodox church which would embrace the concept of family planning in a world seeing increasing hunger and I would like to see it also embrace the law of the land and not give support to illegal aliens as well as abandon the foolish concept of celibate clergy.

   In my case Catholic Charities lost over $10,000 in annual contributions by their unlawful aiding and abeting of illegal aliens (this is under laws already on the books making these acts a felony).

   The church has to change to meet the needs of its members. Is Hannity a good Catholic? I don't know and I would not judge. Am I a good Catholic? Yes, but not one without questions.

   Comment by Mickey G | March 15, 2007

6. This reminds me of an exchange I had with Lydia Cornell a year or so back in which she continued to ask whether or not Bush (and a variety of others) were good Christians. In addition to telling her that it was irrelevant to the debate, I also said that neither of us had a clue, because we had no clue how Bush (or Coulter, Hannity, or even Franken) lived their private lives.

   The issue of Christians telling each other that one of the flock is not a good Christian over a simple disagreement is troubling.

   The issue of contraception is often derided by Catholics not as a matter of biblical doctrine (because although it is commanded that we produce children, the bible does not say that contraception is wrong…no matter how you look at the biblical teachings), but because of the idea that this removes lovemaking from producing children. Similarly they are against artificial ensemination because it removes the creation of children from the act of love making.
   A good friend of mine is recently married. On his wedding night, he and his wife used condoms, a practice he tells me they continued for several months. Now, at a little over a year of marriage, they have been blessed with their first child. Despite using contraceptive, they are obeying God's commandments to bear children.

   This article argues that Hannity may not be a good Christian based on a single position he holds, without knowing him as a person or a Christian. This is ridiculous.
   If you want to argue the merits, argue the merits, don't attack his faith. This is no less nonsensical than when the left does it.

   Comment by WolvenBear | March 15, 2007

7. Unchanging Truth,

   Every one of those Scriptures are interesting, edifying, and full of revelation. However, not a single one of them deals with birth control (except perhaps Gen. 38:9-10, which I will discuss below).

   All of them talk of the delight and blessing that children are, which I wholly agree with. I regard my offspring just that way, and I know God has blessed me this way.

   But we are talking about doctrine here, aren't we? We are talking about what the Bible says, not what the Catholic church says. Violating the commands of the Bible is sin, but why should the Catholic church's commands carry the weight of Scripture?

   Gen. 38:9, 10 is an odd choice for a proof text. Although it has something to do with "birth control" on some level, the sin of Onan is that he disobeyed Judah's command to obey the Scriptures (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

   Again, make the Scriptural case for birth control being a sin.

   Comment by Mountain Man | March 15, 2007

8. Mountain Man,

   Again, make the Scriptural case for birth control being a sin.

   I suggest you read Luther and Calvin on the subject. Luther in particular does a rather thorough exegesis on the subject. In addition, the following is but a short list of Christians who thought it a rather settled matter that contraception is a grave sin:

   From the pre-Schism Church Age:

   Athenagoras of Athens
   Clement of Alexandria
   St. Cyril of Jerusalem
   Hippolytus
   Lactantius
   Epiphanius of Salamis
   St. Augustine
   St. John Chrysostom
   St. Jerome
   Caesarius of Arles

   Post-Schism / Pre-Reformation:

   Thomas Aquinas

   Protestants only - Post-Reformation:

   Martin Luther
   John Calvin
   John Wesley
   Robert Dabney
   Charles Spurgeon
   A.W. Pink
   Cotton Mather
   Jeremy Taylor
   Daniel Defoe
   Matthew Henry
   Walter Maier

   C.S. Lewis expressed grave reservations about this innovation in several of his writings. T.S. Eliot, who favored permitting birth control in limited circumstances, openly criticized his church, the Anglican Communion, for not providing guidelines for when its use was moral and when it was immoral — which assumes that its use is often immoral.

   It was only in 1930, when the Anglican Communion at its Lambeth Conference passed a resolution permitting birth control, that ANY Christian denomination approved it. That resolution was bitterly opposed by many bishops in the Anglican Communion, who predicted that the result of such a radical change would be the moral free fall which we have all witnessed. Up until that time all Protestant denominations which spoke on the issue bitterly opposed it, most on biblical grounds, citing many of the same verses cited by Christians who oppose abortion. See David Kennedy's Birth Control in America in which he describes this struggle. (Kennedy favors birth control.) That opposition was as fierce in the 1920s - 1930s as is the opposition of such groups to abortion and homosexual marriage today.

   Either 19 centuries of uniform and unbroken teaching was wrong or the Anglican Communion was wrong in 1930 in becoming the first of a flood of Protestant denominations to abandon the ancient understanding of the Church universal.

   Read the sources I cite above before closing your mind on this issue. Again, Luther gave the most thorough Scriptural exegesis.

   Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 16, 2007

9. The following statement, to me, is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with the Catholic church:

   "I suggest you read Luther and Calvin on the subject. Luther in particular does a rather thorough exegesis on the subject. In addition, the following is but a short list of Christians who thought it a rather settled matter that contraception is a grave sin:"

   Are Martin Luther and John Calvin qualified to decide what is a sin and what is not? Is any man? The answer, of course, is NO. They are not. If God had wanted to impress upon man that contraception is a "grave sin", he probably would have clearly said so in his instructions for upright living, as he did very explicitly with other grave sins. But he did not. It takes quite a deal of inference to make a case against contraception based on the scriptures you've provided. I don't think something so grave as to require expulsion from the church would have been left so ambiguous by the Hebrew God, or by the Jesus the Messiah. Especially given how clear they were on so many other issues.

   I will say this though: If the Catholic church insists on dogmatically enforcing a non-scriptural doctrinal rule as a qualification for church membership and Sean Hannity refuses to abide by it, then he is a "bad" Catholic. If he doesn't agree with the Catholic church's stance on that issue and refuses to abide by it, then he should join a different denomination. That having been said, I think father Euteneuer could make considerably better use of his time than appearing on national television to challenge another person's faith, and I think the Catholic church has much larger issues to consider than whether or not Sean Hannity is a "good Catholic". The Pope praying in a Muslim mosque and supporting the government of a Muslim country for admission to the EU comes to mind, as does sheltering pedophile priests from law enforcement, but hey, you gotta pick you battles.

   Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 16, 2007

10. Unchanging Truth,

    A little presumptuous to suggest that I have closed my mind, isn't it? Let's try to have a discussion without throwing epithets around.

    That is quite a list of anti-contraceptive advocates. If I were to assemble my own list of men who favored the use of contraceptives, would that somehow make my case more weighty?

    I have indeed reviewed some of the literature regarding this, so do not presume that I am uniformed. The whole point is, I disagree with those in your parade. Their understanding of contraception is derived from the Catholic position in the cultural context of the day, and as such offers no new insight. Martin Luther in particular was almost wholly Catholic in his doctrine, despite his subsequent departure from Catholicism.

    If indeed contraception is a sin, then we must conclude that any failure to sire more children is sin in the context of marriage, including "natural" birth control (abstinence). And we also must conclude that engaging in intercourse where one our both spouses are sterile would be sin. And engaging in intercourse during pregnancy or after the wife has entered menopause is sin. These unions would not carry with them the possibility of conception.

    But let's get back to my question. What Scripture demonstrates that contraception is sin?

    Comment by Mountain Man | March 16, 2007

11. I'll be more specific in sources you should read:

    Martin Luther, Luther’s Work, Vol. 5, pp. 325-332 (Concordia Publishing House)
    _________, Luther’s Work, Vol. 7, pp. 20-21
    _________, Luther’s Work, Vol. 28, p. 279
    _________, Luther’s Work, Vol. 45, 46

    John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis (commentary on the Onan incident)

    Jeremy Taylor, Holy Living

    Daniel Defoe, Conjugal Lewdness, or Matrimonial Whoredom

    Walter A. Maier, For Better Not for Worse

    C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man,
    _______, Out of the Silent Planet
    _______, A Pilgrim's Regress

    The argument from Scripture which I find most compelling is that children are repeatedly called a blessing from God and that many children are a great blessing (e.g., blessed is the man whose quiver if full). When we contracept, we in essence are saying, "No thank you" to God, asserting that what He declares to be a blessing, we do not consider such. John Chrysostom called this contemning the gifts of God.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 16, 2007

12. Mountain Man,

    I apologize if you consider my last post an epithet. I did not consider it as such.

    You say, "That is quite a list of anti-contraceptive advocates. If I were to assemble my own list of men who favored the use of contraceptives, would that somehow make my case more weighty?"

    Find me ONE Christian thinker of note who died before 1900 who condoned the use of contraception. I have looked and have found none. I have asked others who condone contraception to do so and so far they have offered none. I think that that should give one cause for pause.

    If I used your insistence on explicitness, I cannot oppose abortion either as nowhere in Scripture does it say, "Thou shall not abort." It is through exegesis that we conclude that the prohibitions against killing apply to the unborn. The method (and indeed many of the same verses) used to condemn abortion from Scripture are the same ones that our spiritual ancestors used to condemn contraception.

    This is my last post on this thread. May God bless you and again, I did not intend insult.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 16, 2007

13. Mountain Man,

    All of Scripture testifies to the fact that God loves life, that He knows us even as we are in our mothers' wombs, that the main purpose of married intercourse is to produce offspring. Is there a verse that specifically forbids contraception? Maybe not, but is there a verse that specifically forbids child molestation or various other modern-day ethical questions like cloning, harvesting body parts, etc.

    As a Christian, I fully believe that if I am going to give God control of my life, that encompasses ALL of my life, not just what is convenient or socially acceptable. Scripture commands us to take up our cross and follow Christ–how can we fully do that unless we trust Him completely. The Bible clearly enumerates the indisputable fact that God, and God alone, is control of the womb. When humans attempt to wrest that control away, my opinion is that they fall into the temptation to play God. He knows what is best for us; we don't.

    That, and the birth control pill does contain an abortifacient component, which clearly acts against that whole "Thou shall not kill" thing.

    Jim

    Comment by Jim | March 16, 2007

14. From Mountain man - "If indeed contraception is a sin, then we must conclude that any failure to sire more children is sin in the context of marriage, including “natural” birth control (abstinence). "

    Not true. At least not exactly. Church teaching on NFP is focused on a couple's openness to conception. There are acceptable reasons a couple may want to avoid conception(health for instance), but this is not the same as contraception, which is actively (and unnaturally) blocking the possibility of conception.

    Onan's refusal to "give his brother children" is a scriptural demonstration of contraception being wrong. Onan was not condemned to death by the Hebrew leaders. God stuck him down in anger over his deed. If Onan had flatly refused to "enter his brother's tent", his punishment would have been humiliation, not death. The Bible does not give every instance of what is regarded as murder, just as it does not have to give every instance of contraception.

    Another point, the Church does not base all of doctrine on scripture alone (protestant teaching) but scripture AND tradition. For instance, the immaculate conception of Mary is not explicit (however it is implied in the visitation of Gabriel), yet the Church accepts this as settled dogma and as a Catholic you must accept this teaching.

    As For Sean Hannity, he calls himself a "good" Catholic and yet openly disagrees with Church teaching. If he judges himself, then it is right for someone, especially a clergy member, to call him on it and rebuke him for possibly causing scandal. And don't tell me you have the right to judge yourself, you obviously can't judge yourself into heaven.

    I know many people who disagree with a lot of what the Church teaches, but that in itself does not make you a bad Catholic. But disagreeing publicly and castigating a Priest on national TV is definitely wrong, and Sean should apologize for his disrespect. Fr. Euteneuer is a good man and a good priest and certainly did not deserve Hannity's treatment whether you agree with Sean or not.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 16, 2007

15. Doctrine cannot be established from the silence of Scripture. Scripture is silent about a lot of things, mostly because there are things that are a matter of individual preference.

    It is the Catholic church, not Scripture, that has established this teaching. I am not a Catholic, I do not recognize the traditions of the Catholic church, and I object to them being raised up to the level of Scripture. Requiring obedience to a position simply because the church says so is truly scary.

    We can infer a lot of things from Scripture. But there is usually very little need to do so; indeed, such inferences frequently lead us into error. We should also account for the forces at work in those cultures where men expressed their opinions about Scripture.

    And what is the relevance of the date 1900? The age of the opinion is irrelevant. Are you therefore prepared to reject the infallability of every Pope since 1900 as well? Again, let's be consistent.

    Abortion is a bad example. That abortion is the taking of life is indisputable. the life can only be human. Exodus 21:22 provides penalty for someone who kills an unborn baby. Therefore, it is murder. Plain as day, no inferences needed.

    By the way, I believe I'm correct when I say that Catholic doctrine on this matter does not allow for exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother, a position I happen to agree with. But this is the same kind of exception that Annasdad invokes regarding contraception. So, let's be consistent, shall we?

    Mary WAS a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Matt 1:24-25 says, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." And Luke 1:34 says, "'How will this be,'" Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'" Again, no inference needed. Hmm, was Joseph's self imposed abstinence a sin?

    Yes of course, we ought to trust God as completely as we can. So, do you steer your car (or horse, or camel) around corners, or do you trust the Lord to do it? Scripture is silent on this matter. Do you take medicine when you're sick, or do you rely on God to heal you?

    If you don't trust God to take care of these matters because prudence dictates that you involve yourself at some level in these things, then how is choosing the size of your family any different?

    Comment by Mountain Man | March 16, 2007

16. "By the way, I believe I’m correct when I say that Catholic doctrine on this matter does not allow for exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother, a position I happen to agree with. But this is the same kind of exception that Annasdad invokes regarding contraception. So, let’s be consistent, shall we?"

    Where's the inconsistency? Contraception is before conception. Abortion is after a new life (and soul) are created. There is no exception for killing an innocent, so you are at least correct there.

    "I am not a Catholic, I do not recognize the traditions of the Catholic church, and I object to them being raised up to the level of Scripture."

    Ahh, well, I get it now. This is not a place to discuss your disagreements with a religion you don't even belong to. It has to do with Sean Hannity claiming HE is a good and faithful Catholic then castigates a CATHOLIC priest publicly. As a Catholic myself, I do take offense at what HE did. I'll say it again - whether or not he agrees with Church teaching, what he did to Fr. Euteneuer was wrong.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 16, 2007

17. Onan's sin in "spilling his seed on the ground" is that he disobeyed the direct commandment of God. He was told to impregnate his brother's wife, and refused. His sin is NOT contraception.

    Not only does the bible provide penalties for the killing of an unborn baby, but it also sets human life apart as sacred at all points. Abortion is indeed a very bad example.

    The Catholic church has seen to make masturbation, artificial ensemination and contraception against church doctrine based in part on the misunderstanding of the story of Onan, and on the connection that lovemaking and conceiving children are supposed to go hand in hand. This is doctrine, not bible verse.

    Complaining about people ignoring doctrine is comparable to those in DC harping on about ignoring 60 years of precedent which weren't constitutionally founded.

    Comment by WolvenBear | March 16, 2007

18. Mountain Man ,

    "And what is the relevance of the date 1900?"

    Since you ask me a direct question, I will answer it and then I will stop posting.

    Nineteen centuries of Christians (not just Catholics, but ALL Christians of ALL denominations and traditions who left any teaching on this) held in UNISON that contraception was gravely sinful. That includes leaders of the Church before the Council of Nicea, leaders of the Church after the Council of Nicea and before the Great Schism, leaders of the Western Church after the Great Schism and before the Reformation, and Protestants following the Reformation until 1930. (I can cite prominent Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists and Methodists who taught up to the middle years of the 20th century that contraception is illicit. I am and have been for my entire life an evangelical Protestant.)

    Many of these writers cited and “exegeted” Scripture to support the prohibition on contraception. I have found NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE of any Christian of note prior to the 20th century who disputed these teachers. It was accepted by ALL who commented on it. 20th and 21rst century Christians who reject these teachers are assuming that their discernment is greater than the most prominent Christians of ALL traditions who lived during the first 19 centuries of the faith. They assume that their exegesis is correct and that these earlier Christians were wrong.

    All the predicted results of abandoning this understanding from Scripture proffered by both Catholic and Protestant supporters of the then UNIFORM and UNBROKEN teaching have come to pass, with increased rates of divorce, abortion, and pre-marital and extra-marital sex. In addition, supporters of gay marriage now throw up contraception as an example of why the potential of procreation is not in anyway related to sexual acts or the propriety of marriage between those of the same gender. Thus when we point to the speck in their eye, they respond by pointing to the timber in our own. (See, for example, the effort of a gay man in the state of Washington who is promoting, as a ploy, a referendum in that state to tie marriage to the actual procreation of children to point to the hypocrisy of Christians and that states Supreme Court who argue that marriage and procreation are related.) Liberal Christians now apply new exegetical methods to justify abortion and homosexual activity, just as they did in the first half of the 20th century to justify contraception.

    It was the Supreme Court decision in Griswold (in 1965, only 35 years after the 1930 Lambeth Conference) which created out of whole cloth the "right to privacy" to strike down state laws restricting the availability of contraceptives to married couple. That manufactured right was used to strike down laws restricting contraceptives to unmarried couples and minors, laws criminalizing abortion and, most recently, laws criminalizing sodomy and, in Massachusetts, laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

    In rejecting the UNIFORM and UNBROKEN understanding of Scripture of Christians on this matter from the first 19 centuries of our faith, we have unleashed all sorts of immorality. In pride, we have substituted our own reading of Scripture for that of the Church universal in ALL generations prior to 1930. And, I would argue as a result, we have reaped what we sowed.

    Why should we reject 19 centuries of UNIFORM and UNBROKEN teaching, including extensive exegesis from Scripture to support it and accept RECENT innovations by a generation of Christians whose conduct mirrors that of the secular culture rather than that of the saints? Is that not moral relativism? Does that not undermine our ability to declare that God's truths are unchanging and readily discernible? If not, how do we explain why we are correct in rejecting truths held as unchanging and readily discernible by 19 centuries of Christians but that they are in error in rejecting truths held as unchanging and readily discernible by 19 and a half centuries of Christians? For example, how do we answer Christians who reject the Church's uniform and unbroken teaching against polygamy, who, like those who condone contraception, point out that polygamy is not explicitly prohibited in Scripture and, even better for their position than for those who condone contraception, was, in fact, practiced by many of the Old Testament saints? In rejecting 19 centuries of UNIFORM and UNBROKEN teaching on this subject, we leave ourselves in a very untenable position on the pressing moral issues of our own day, for example, acceptance of homosexual acts and marriage, efforts to legalize polygamy, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia.

    That is "the relevance of the date 1900."

    I am still waiting, and suppose I will continue to do so, to be given a cite to even ONE Christian of note who died prior to 1900 who disputed the teaching against contraception or the Scriptural basis cited therefor.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 16, 2007

19. "The Catholic church has seen to make masturbation, artificial ensemination and contraception against church doctrine based in part on the misunderstanding of the story of Onan, and on the connection that lovemaking and conceiving children are supposed to go hand in hand. This is doctrine, not bible verse."

    It's doctrine based on Bible verse. There is also tradition. The church uses both in determining doctrine. Like I noted before, much like the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary and her assumption into Heaven, they are not based on scripture alone. The church has never accepted the concept of Sola Scriptura. However, if you're like Mountain Man, and are offended by the church teaching from tradition, trying to explain it will go nowhere. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with people who are not Catholic who disagree with church teaching.

    "church doctrine based in part on the misunderstanding…"

    Are you a theologian Wovenbear that you can say with such authority that the church fathers, doctors, and theologians all "just misunderstood" this passage??

    "Complaining about people ignoring doctrine is comparable to those in DC harping on about ignoring 60 years of precedent which weren’t constitutionally founded."

    I don't know what you're talking about here. What is this referring to?

    Comment by Annasdad | March 16, 2007

20. As are so many of its positions, the Catholic teachings on sexuality (including contraception, masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, etc.) reside not in a single “proof text”, but rather emerges from long and deep meditation on the fullness of God’s revelation, both in the Scriptures and in the person of His Son. Many of these teachings begin with Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them.” In this single verse we learn that humankind is a unique creation and carries a special dignity and responsibility. The really interesting thing about this verse for the current discussion, however, is in the clue it gives us about who God is. Along with verse 26, it is the first scriptural clue that God is, in essence, communal. This is logical, as God is love (1 Jn. 4:8) and love requires an object. And love is creative. Catholics believe that it is out of love that God made Creation, particularly that humankind might join Him in the divine communal life of love. Thus creation of humankind as male and female reflects the mystery of the Trinity, separate persons somehow form a single union of love, which in turn begets Life. We are most human and most faithful to our Creator when we most conform to the nature in which we were begotten and to which we are called.

    Humankind, however, has largely separated itself from the desire to understand and to conform to this nature. Interestingly we call this rebellion “human nature”. What it really is a lack of trust in the Father, who repeatedly has tried to assure us that things would really work out if we’d all just conform to what we were created to be. Instead, we take it upon ourselves to dictate when a life will be created; we create artificial barriers to assure ourselves that our “love making” won’t result in the interruption of our personal agendas. We are well on our way to dictating when a created life is “good enough” to continue. We continue to deny the Father’s lordship and assert our own. But Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 6, “But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” There are those who would argue that this is addressing adultery, prostitution and promiscuity, but I would suggest that one who is united with the Lord, participating in the divine spiritual life, will recognize His lordship as Father, while we are – and will always be - children, called to obedience and conformity to His image, and called to reflect this image, through the power of the Holy Spirit in our bodies, to others similarly called.

    I haven't seen the original televised discussion, but while the accusation of "heresy" may have been a bit strong and may have contributed to a less than reasonable discussion, if Mr. Hannity is using his public forum to assert that contraception is an acceptable option for practicing Catholics, then perhaps the charge was approriately chosen, because Mr. Hannity is clearly stating nothing other than his personal opinion

    Comment by alandmuse | March 17, 2007

21. This excellent article explains the Catholic Church's reasons. I read this three months ago and I am still in awe.

    Contraception: Why Not? - Janet Smith
    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

    Janet Smith explains why the Catholic Church keeps insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time.

    Comment by rainbowrunner | March 17, 2007

22. If you think contraception is OK then try to imagine Jesus giving a sermon on love and marriage where he says contraception is OK.

    Or better yet try to imagine him passing out condoms to married couples.

    Try to imagine a Bible story where someone comes up to Jesus and asks him about contraception. How do YOU see him responding?

    God said go forth and multiply. He did not say go forth, multiply and stop when you get to six billion.

    There is no overpopulation population problem on the planet. The United States alone can easily make enough food to feed the world many times over. The only people that are hungry are hungry for political reasons.

    The rise of the accepted use of contraception exactly correlates to the rise of the divorce rate and broken families. Coincidence?

    Read Contraception: Why Not? - Janet Smith
    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

    Comment by rainbowrunner | March 17, 2007

23. Well said, Alan.

    Rainbowrunner, Janet Smith is an excellent choice. I would also suggest, "Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism", by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. This book describes their conversion from Presbyterian ministers to Catholics which began when he set out to prove the church wrong on contraception. His conclusion was that the church was correct (on this and many other things) and his only option after careful study was to convert.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 17, 2007

24. For Protestant readers, I would suggest reading a Wikipedia article on the Quiverfull movement within conservative evangelical Protestantism, available at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull

    and the sources cited therein.

    I am not an adherent to the complete Quiverfull position, believing that their are exigent circumstances (for example, serious risk to the life of the potential mother), which justifies the use of contraception. (That was in fact the law in many states until Margaret Sanger and her ilk began having success in their efforts to legalize contraception and abortion.) It is worth noting that the Catholic Church does not condone the use of NFP under any or all circumstances, but requires serious reasons, such as the one I mentioned or spacing of children. While the Catholic Church teaches that NFP may be used to limit the prospect of conception under such circumstances, it is not approved for use by those who simply desire to not have any or to have only a few children.

    Again, this is not merely a Catholic issue, it is an issue for all Christians.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 17, 2007

25. Okay, so the only argument proffered by contraception opponents in relation to the Bible is that it is a sin to refuse to be "fruitful and multiply". This is the center of the argument against interfering with natural conception - one would be disobeying a perceived commandment to procreate (the inquisitive might speculate on whether or not God's "command" to "be fruitful and multiply" was an individual directive to every person who would ever live, or an individual directive to the first pair of humans ever to grace creation, or a general directive for humans to populate the earth, but we'll leave that aside) . So then, we may infer logically, based upon that argument, that a Christian (or Jewish) person is therefore obligated to marry and have children. Refusing to marry and not procreating would be in defiance of the same commandment for the same reason. By this logic, Jesus himself did not fulfill God's command to be "fruitful and multiply". Jesus the man had no wife or children. Was God's love and commandment then truly reflected in Jesus? Catholic clergy are forbidden by the church to marry and be "fruitful". Have they not failed to meet God's directive? Quite in contradiction to the command to be "fruitful and mulitply", the apostle Paul discourages anyone from marrying (and therefore procreating, since sexual relations outside of marriage are forbidden) in 1 Corinthians:

    "1… It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband… 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were [unmarried] as I am."

    " 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

    "25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

    "38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better."

    This argument is based on weak reasoning. You can try to evade the issue by saying that there is a difference between remaining unmarried and using contraception, but they both are in violation of the same directive, just by slightly different methods. If it's a sin (and a "grave sin" at that) not to procreate, then a person who refuses to become married would be in equal violation of the command.

    I would also point out once again to those who cannot make a Biblical argument and instead keep pointing to Bible "experts" for interpretation, that one does not need special training to be a Christian or understand the Bible. The Catholic church has long insisted that layman not study the scriptures independently (and for good reason, given that many of their teachings and dogma can't be found within them). But the men who wrote the gospels, the foundation of the Christian faith, were not theologians! In fact, they were selected by Jesus precisely because they were not theologians. Jesus castigated the Jewish religious leadership for exactly this kind of arrogance and self-righteousness. Also, quite ironically, most of the "respected theologians" that have been cited and quoted here were expelled from the church for heresy in their day, and are doctrinally opposed to the Catholic church and even each other. I guess this is the only exegesis they were able to get right. If any interpretation that breaks with accepted dogma is hogwash, then any of the Reformation or post-Reformation writings can be thrown out without regard. Going back 1500 years before that, a man claiming to be the "son of God" is heresy, and therefore Christianity is nothing more than a heretical form of Judaism. Right?

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 18, 2007

26. Patrick Mulligan writes:

    Okay, so the only argument proffered by contraception opponents in relation to the Bible is that it is a sin to refuse to be “fruitful and multiply”…

    and

    I would also point out once again to those who cannot make a Biblical argument and instead keep pointing to Bible “experts” for interpretation, that one does not need special training to be a Christian or understand the Bible. The Catholic church has long insisted that layman not study the scriptures independently (and for good reason, given that many of their teachings and dogma can’t be found within them).

    Patrick,
    Your statements undermine your argument in that they show that you're clearly not listening and seeking to understand what others (or the Church) are saying. The other points beyond "being fruitful and multiply" have gone right over your head, your assertion about the Catholic Church's insistence that the laity not study the scriptures is erroneous, and the fact that you are arguing with a number of other people that your understanding of the scriptures is superior to theirs, or to the early Church Fathers, for that matter, illustrates the presumptuousness of your assertion that one does not need special training to understand the Bible.

    "Let those also be of good cheer who are married and use their marriage properly; who enter marriage lawfully, and not out of wantonness and unbounded license; who recognize periods of continence so that they may give themselves to prayer…who have embarked upon the matrimonial estate for the procreation of children, and not for the sake of indulgence.” – St. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 350 A.D.)

    Comment by alandmuse | March 18, 2007

27. "Your statements undermine your argument in that they show that you’re clearly not listening and seeking to understand what others (or the Church) are saying. The other points beyond “being fruitful and multiply” have gone right over your head"

    No other BIBLICAL points have been made. I am not a Catholic, and I do not hold non-scriptural writing to be sacred and beyond question. I clearly said that the only BIBLICAL argument made was in regards to the command to "be fruitful and multiply". And that is the only scripture that has been cited by any of the posters, or any of the "church elders" or forefathers in reference to this doctrine. I believe that the inference required for the scripture to match the conclusion is large, and the reasoning subject to multiple possible interpretations. it is not I, but the contraception opponents and "the church" that refuse to acknowledge any other interpretation or point of view for the sole reason that such interpretations are new.

    "your assertion about the Catholic Church’s insistence that the laity not study the scriptures is erroneous"

    I did not say that they forbade it necessarily, but discouraged it. Indeed, the Catholic church was long criticized for it's lack of an English translation (or at least a readily-available and distributed version) of the Bible despite the fact that the post-Reformation denominations eagerly translated and distributed the Bible for lay persons. The Catholic church did not dispense with Latin-only services until last century. The independent study of the Bible, outside of the context of the rest of the church's doctrinal literature and tradition, is still discouraged by the Catholic church. The Catholic church does not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to reach an understanding of Christian principles. In essence, it believes that laymen are not capable of a full understanding of Christianity without supporting Catholic literature.

    "… and the fact that you are arguing with a number of other people that your understanding of the scriptures is superior to theirs, or to the early Church Fathers, for that matter, illustrates the presumptuousness of your assertion that one does not need special training to understand the Bible."

    First of all, I never said that my understanding of scripture was superior to anyone else's. In fact, that is what you and the Catholic church are engaging in. You do not believe that MY interpretation of this particular piece of scripture is valid because it is different than yours. The same thing was said when Martin Luther challenged the scriptural authority for selling penance for sins for a price at the start of the Reformation - a practice that I would point out, is no longer engaged in or supported by the Catholic church. I do not have any special training in Bible interpretation, so I do not understand how my position is presumptuous. I am not the one who has been seeking to invalidate an alternate interpretation of a passage of scripture. You, or "the Church fathers" or the "the Church" are. I believe that your position is not supported by scripture, but I do not believe that you are not entitled to that interpretation. On the other hand, any belief that does not fall in line with Catholic orthodoxy (or whatever orthodoxy you happen to subscribe to, so long as it supports your viewpoint) has been immediately disregarded by your camp. You believe that it takes a team of scholars to interpret the scriptures. You will note that I have not once challenged your interpretation on the basis of its level of theological scholarship. However, the anti-contraception team, when asked for scriptural support for their position, has instead pointed to exegeses by ancient theologians and called into question the authority of others to interpret the scripture for themselves (see post 19).

    “Let those also be of good cheer who are married and use their marriage properly; who enter marriage lawfully, and not out of wantonness and unbounded license; who recognize periods of continence so that they may give themselves to prayer…who have embarked upon the matrimonial estate for the procreation of children, and not for the sake of indulgence.” – St. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 350 A.D.)

    Nothing like a good dose of irony. To the charge that your case is not scriptural and that the Catholic church overly-emphasizes non-scriptural writings and theologian interpretation, you respond with a non-scriptural quote from a 3rd century theologian. Please see my previous points.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 18, 2007

28. Patrick Mulligan writes:

    Nothing like a good dose of irony.

    Patrick, I’m not sure that there’s anything that I or anyone else can say to you that will change your position. You are oblivious to the other biblical references cited in this discussion (I mention at least two others in post #20) and you seem to forget your own words equally quickly. (You say that you did not assert that the Church forbade personal study of scripture, but you did assert “The Catholic church has long insisted that layman not study the scriptures independently.” In post 26. ) But, more to the point, you insist on using an unscriptural principle (sola scriptura) to defend your appeal to scripture. Now, that’s irony.

    The fact that, as the Church has codified specific principles or doctrines as held truths, future considerations must be consonant with these principles is not some sort of ‘repression” of revelation or understanding; rather it is building upon a firm foundation – the meditations of those who knew Jesus and their immediate students. One would assume that when Jesus said he’d send the Spirit of truth, he’d have mentioned that He was planning on delaying its coming by 1500 years if that was the case, wouldn’t you think? However, you seem to insist that anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is as legitimate as anyone else’s; we have seen the fruits of this principle over the last 500 years and anyone who is impressed with them isn’t worried about an accurate interpretation of Scripture anyway, for one can see in the factionalism that has resulted that they were, and continue to be, sown in a foundation of shifting sand. The bottom line is that while you continue to embrace your personal infallibility or to deny that there is any authoritative teaching whatsoever, you are free to go wherever the wind blows on this and any other issue you like.

    Others have tried to show you how, for 1900 years, all Christian denominations accepted the sacredness of life and the sacredness of the marriage union as a reflection of the Trinitarian life of God as a foundational approach to the issue of contraception, abortion, and other issues regarding sexuality. You seem to accept that its perfectly legitimate to accept that in the 1900’s humankind somehow became “enlightened” as to the error of this understanding. But the fact is, that if one asks whether the teaching changed more as a result of a new understanding of the world (along the lines of that presented by Copernicus) or as a result of the current teaching simply becoming increasingly unpopular, one has to concede it was the latter. In that the worldview did not change dramatically in that era, one has to attribute that as a matter of so many people being disobedient that what passes for an authoritative body for these people eventually throws up its hands and decides to quit arguing the point. That is the fundamental difference of the Catholic Church: it speaks of truths of an unchanging God, and so the truths are unchanging, regardless of how many people may want it otherwise.

    Comment by alandmuse | March 18, 2007

29. "Patrick, I’m not sure that there’s anything that I or anyone else can say to you that will change your position."

    I'm equally convinced the same of you. Only one of us seems to have a hard time accepting this of the other.

    " You are oblivious to the other biblical references cited in this discussion (I mention at least two others in post #20)"

    If by "oblivious" you mean that I have a very difficult time tying "man was made in the image of God" to "contraception is a grave sin worthy of expulsion from the church", then you could say I was "oblivious". I ignored that part of your argument because the reasoning that ties the evidence to the conclusion is confounded and based entirely upon YOUR interpretation of a verse that has nothing to do with the issue of contraception, except by philosophical gymnastics.

    "and you seem to forget your own words equally quickly. (You say that you did not assert that the Church forbade personal study of scripture, but you did assert “The Catholic church has long insisted that layman not study the scriptures independently.” In post 26. )"

    I fully explained my position in both posts. I did not say that the Catholic church currently forbids the reading of scripture, as you implied, but noted that that Catholic church was among the last denominations to make the Bible accessible in English to laypersons, delivered services only in Latin until the middle of last century, and discourages anyone from reading the scriptures independently - that is, without the accompaniment of Catholic interpretive literature. I explained this position already, if you bother to read more than a one-sentence snippet of each of my posts.

    "But, more to the point, you insist on using an unscriptural principle (sola scriptura) to defend your appeal to scripture. Now, that’s irony."

    Sola scriptura (the concept that scripture is the word of God and is sufficient on its own to decide Christian doctrine), is only unscriptural in the sense that it is not mentioned. It is an area of theological disagreement among the many denominations. As I said, the Catholic church believes that it takes a team of theologians and teachers to interpret the scriptures for the congregation. Hence your insistence that only "church fathers", "church leaders", and ancient theologians are able to interpret this issue.

    "The fact that, as the Church has codified specific principles or doctrines as held truths, future considerations must be consonant with these principles is not some sort of ‘repression” of revelation or understanding; rather it is building upon a firm foundation – the meditations of those who knew Jesus and their immediate students."

    The only problem with that is that the Church has codified certain principles and doctrines that are not supported by any of the recorded teachings of Jesus. And I wasn't aware that John Calvin, Martin Luther, St. Cyril of Jeruselum, or any of the authors you cited, were immediate students of Jesus. I might also point out that the regional Orthodox Christian churches insist that it is their denomination that is descended from the original church and teachings of Jesus, and believe that their doctrinal teachings (often contrary to Catholic doctrine) are correct. Doctrinal disagreements are the reason for the divisions among the churches. So an argument based entirely on "tradition"and "doctrine" is only valid to the adherents of that particular congregation. The Catholic church places

    "One would assume that when Jesus said he’d send the Spirit of truth, he’d have mentioned that He was planning on delaying its coming by 1500 years if that was the case, wouldn’t you think? However, you seem to insist that anyone’s interpretation of Scripture is as legitimate as anyone else’s… The bottom line is that while you continue to embrace your personal infallibility or to deny that there is any authoritative teaching whatsoever, you are free to go wherever the wind blows on this and any other issue you like."

    I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Since there are dozens of Christian denominations, and you reject any teaching not aligned with Catholic orthodoxy, then are you saying that the Spirit of truth only affected certain individuals? Since the Catholic church has changed its positions on several significant issues, are you saying that the Spirit of truth was wrong, or inconsistent? Or do you mean to imply that the Spirit of truth has left and does not guide people today? I did not say that any interpretation of scripture is correct. What I do believe is that since there is no clear Biblical direction in this particular case, that one interpretation may be challenged by another without it being heretical (unlike, for example, homosexuality, about which the Bible is exceedingly clear, but the Catholic church is not). I believe that it is not unacceptable to apply logic to the given text and make contrasting arguments. You believe that "the church" are the only ones who can decipher scripture, or who can be visited by the Spirit of truth. You believe that "the church" is infallible in its interpretation of scripture (quite ironic since you do not believe in the infallibility of scripture itself, but only its interpretation). I do not believe that "the church" is incapable of making mistakes (because it clearly has). I do not believe in the infallibility of the church's dogma (because it's been changed and apologized for), or of the church leaders, including the Pope (as I mentioned, I am not a Catholic). I do not believe in my own infallibility either. You are the one shouting down from that high horse my friend, not I.

    "Others have tried to show you how, for 1900 years, all Christian denominations accepted the sacredness of life and the sacredness of the marriage union as a reflection of the Trinitarian life of God as a foundational approach to the issue of contraception, abortion, and other issues regarding sexuality. "

    And you've done a poor job of it scripturally, as I've been arguing since the beginning of this discussion. Tying the sacredness of life to contraception by saying that we are called by God to be fruitful and tying the "sacredness of marriage" (in this case meant to mean: the idea that if you're married, you are required to have sex that results in conception until you are physically incapable of doing so) to the nature of the holy trinity because God is a creator, and referred to scripturally as "Father", is a far stretch given the scriptures you've cited. Taken in context, they have nothing to do with the issue. Rather than use the scriptures to reach a conclusion to the issue, you use the issue to find a conclusion in the scriptures. Logically, this is bass-ackwards.

    I'm going to end my posting to this discussion here and let you have whatever last words you want. I would like to point out that none of the counter-arguments I made or scripture I cited has been quoted and responded to even once by you or anyone else from the anti-contraception front. Instead, minute snippets of my posts that deal purely with petty doctrinal issues have been addressed and met with endless quotes from ancient theological scholars and my ability to interpret scripture has been invalidated due my lack of theological training (Note: I have no questioned the theological training or competence of anyone else personally, but simply made a counter-argument pointing out a lack of scriptural support for claims made). I think my position on the issue has been well explained, and nothing new or relevant to the topic is any longer being discussed. Until next time, adieu.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 19, 2007

30. I seem to have accidentally cut off one of my sentences in my last post. The end of my fifth paragraph should read: The Catholic church places absolute authority in its doctrinal beliefs to the exclusion of all other denominations, so that is a valid source of authority from Catholic to Catholic, but not from Catholic to a denomination that does not adhere to Catholic orthodoxy.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 19, 2007

31. Patrick,

    How do you understand the following verses?

    And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Gen. 1:28

    And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Gen. 9:1

    Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
    the fruit of the womb a reward.
    Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
    are the children of one's youth.
    Blessed is the man
    who fills his quiver with them! Ps. 127:3-5

    1 John 1:10 says, "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." He says this because God declares in His word that we are sinners. To say we are not is to deny what He says in His word. God repeatedly calls children a blessing. Isn't the use of birth control in effect calling God a liar? Doesn't He, in the verses I cite above, declare children are a blessing and that the man who has many of them is blessed? When we contracept, we are by our action calling Him a liar. If children are a blessing, as He declares, wouldn't you want His blessings? Of course you would. One who contracepts is denying His declaration that many children are a blessing.

    If I offer a gift to someone and his reply is, "No thanks," I am insulted. That man has, in effect, said that what I have offerred to him as a gift is not worth receiving or that accepting it would not be to his benefit. This is commonly understood. It is even shown through Scripture:

    And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy.'" Matt. 22:1-8

    Again, John Chrysostom, for this very reason, called the use of contraception "contemning the gifts of God." Show how is conclusion is incorrect.

    You argue with the Catholic Christians and their traditions, but you fail to address the Scriptural case against contraception or to show why the innovative interpretation of Scripture permitting contraception which only appeared in the last century is right while 19 centuries of Christians who disagreed were wrong. You simply assert that you are correct and all the great Christians who spoke in a unified voice against it for 19 centuries are wrong. Prove it.

    There were in fact a group that called themselves Christians in the early days of the Church who not only condoned, but promoted contraception: the Gnostics. This is the same group who gave us the Gospel of Judas. They were the ones to whom the early Christian condemnations of contraception were directed. Their support of contraception followed logically from one of their heresies, that the body (created by God) is evil. They also denied the bodily resurrection for the same reason. In modern times, the denominations that lead the charge to abandon the ancient understanding that contraception is sinful are exactly the same denominations that have fought for legalized abortion and against the sinfulness of homosexual acts. They are the same denominations that support gay clergy and same sex "marriages." Not surprisingly, many of these same denominations also reject the bodily resurrection. They are, in fact, gnostics as well.

    This is not a matter of salvation. It is a matter is discerning the will of God and saying to him, "Behold, I am the bondservant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

    I hope you will, like I did, spend months reading all there is available on this subject and asking the Holy Spirit for discernment. May God bless you.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 19, 2007

32. "Sola scriptura (the concept that scripture is the word of God and is sufficient on its own to decide Christian doctrine), is only unscriptural in the sense that it is not mentioned."

    Now that is ironic. Incidentally, since the Bible was not codified for hundreds of years after the last of the 12 apostles died, what do you think the early church relied on? The answer, tradition. And how did the church come to select the books and letters for inclusion in the Bible? Again, tradition.

    "As I said, the Catholic church believes that it takes a team of theologians and teachers to interpret the scriptures for the congregation. Hence your insistence that only “church fathers”, “church leaders”, and ancient theologians are ABLE (emphasis added) to interpret this issue."

    I highlight the word able because this is not true. The church teaches it has authority for official interpretation which is not the same as ability. The church points to apostolic succession in support of this. I can read the Bible, and interpret a passage, and discuss it with fellow Christian, but if I say my interpretation supersedes the Church's interpretation, I have no authority to make that claim.

    Anyone can interpret the Bible or passages in the Bible any way they want. Does that make it OK. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons use the same Bible, but their interpretations are decidedly not Christian. Are their translations valid?

    "I’m not sure what exactly you mean. Since there are dozens of Christian denominations, and you reject any teaching not aligned with Catholic orthodoxy, then are you saying that the Spirit of truth only affected certain individuals?"

    Actually there are thousands of denominations. Almost all of them bear no resemblance to the first protestant churches of the reformation. Mainly because none of them have authority. If a non-catholic belongs to a certain church and hears something he doesn't like, he goes somewhere where he can find someone who agrees with him, or simply starts his own. I have seen this happen.

    "Since the Catholic church has changed its positions on several significant issues…"
    or
    "The only problem with that is that the Church has codified certain principles and doctrines that are not supported by any of the recorded teachings of Jesus."

    Really, like what? And do any of these changes have to do with faith and morality?

    "I think my position on the issue has been well explained, and nothing new or relevant to the topic is any longer being discussed."

    It seems to me your position is to bash the Catholic church and anyone who is a faithful follower of Catholicism. I read all your posts, but none of them explain why contraception is a good thing, only that the church is wrong then give a list of scripture passages taken out of context.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 19, 2007

33. We will all stand before the Judgement seat of Christ one day and give an account for our words and actions–there are several convincing arguments given for contraception, but none, I believe, will convince God that He was wrong to describe children as "rewards."

    Ultimately, if one is married and fully persuaded that contraception is God's will, I would hope that that decision is fully based on prayer, Scripture, and then carried out in good conscience. However, what I typically see are couples making this critical decision based on the norms of society (and the church!), without having even consulted the Bible.

    Bottom line: God loves us and wants what is best for us. If we shun his blessings and assume we know better what we need, that is not trust, or faith.

    Comment by Jim | March 19, 2007

34. Well, I'm back from the weekend break, so I guess I'll jump back in.

    "Isn’t the use of birth control in effect calling God a liar?" This is a truly breathtaking assertion. The theological term for this is eisegesis. This is how false doctrines are born:
    1) Obtain a Scripture or scriptural principle that everyone agrees with (children are a blessing)
    2) Make an inference (birth control prevents blessing).
    3) Make additional inferences (birth control is against God's purpose, sex is only for procreation)
    4) From the inferences, draw a conclusion (preventing blessing is a sin, recreational sex is wrong, small families are contrary to God's purpose)
    5) From the conclusion, infer an ancillary sin (using contraception is calling God a liar).

    One other thing. Sex only for procreation is unscriptural. 1 Cor 7:8-9 says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Ergo, get married and have sex.

    Comment by Mountain Man | March 19, 2007

35. Whether or not Hannity is a good Catholic is of some concern to us, but we should be more concerned how "Catholic" the legislators are who signed the "Statement of Principles by Fifty-Five (55) Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives" http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2006/February/catholic_statement_2_28_06.html in light of the response by the USCCB Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians http://www.usccb.org/catholicspubliclife.shtml .
    Also, "Mickey G" in post #5 above states, "The church has to change to meet the needs of its members."
    This is a common demand of a lot of people who call themselves “Catholic” but is completely at odds with Catholicism. Catholicism is not (repeat, not) a consumer product. The Church in general, and the bishops in particular, are charged with the holy task of molding consciences, saving souls, and transforming culture through the propagation of Christian truths, not to be changed BY the culture. If the Church were to change its teachings with the times, there would be no need for the Church; all we need do is look to the popular culture for our morals. “One must never lose sight of the fact that the Church does not find the source of her faith and her constitutive structure in the principles of the social order of any historical period". Translation: Church doctrine is not determined by liberal American jet-set philosophy of the day. – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; "Concerning the CDF Reply Regarding Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

    Comment by sedonaman | March 19, 2007

36. "One other thing. Sex only for procreation is unscriptural. 1 Cor 7:8-9 says, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Ergo, get married and have sex."

    No kidding. The church teaches that sex is both unitive AND procreative. You cannot have one with out the other. Which is why the church is also against artificial insemination because it remove the procreative act from the unitive act. No one here has proposed that sex is ONLY for procreative purposes. And Paul did not say, "get married and have sex - but don't have any children."

    Your reasoning in #3 above is flawed. As has been said before, natural forms of birth control are not opposed to God's purposes but is open to the possibility of new life. Nowhere is the claim made that sex is only for procreation.
    Your conclusions in #4 are mostly flawed. Conscious and active prevention of a blessing could be a sin. No one here has said you need to have many children. Using contraception, to effect this outcome though, is. Sex for recreational purposes without the openness to new life or outside the marriage covenant is a sin.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 19, 2007

37. Well, someone indeed did make the case for proceation only: Post #27 - "'Let those also be of good cheer who are married and use their marriage properly; who enter marriage lawfully, and not out of wantonness and unbounded license; who recognize periods of continence so that they may give themselves to prayer…who have embarked upon the matrimonial estate for the procreation of children, and not for the sake of indulgence.' – St. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 350 A.D.)"

    "Conscious and active prevention of a blessing could be a sin." Oh, really? Could be? When will you know for sure, since you seem to know about these other sins with such certainty? And again, I need to see the Scripture that says so.

    "No one here has said you need to have many children." Now we are truly arguing circles. When is the number of children sufficient to not be sinning? And who decides? "Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them." If you believe this Scripture, a full quiver can only mean "many."

    "Sex for recreational purposes without the openness to new life or outside the marriage covenant is a sin." Yes, finally, a statement based on Scripture (at least in part). We know for sure that sex outside of marriage is a sin, for we have explicit Scriptural statements. But according to you, this sin is on par in severity with engaging in marital recreational sex with contraception, for which we have no explicit statements in Scripture, only inference and extrapolation.

    I think I'm over this debate. If there is no baseline (Scripture), then anything goes.

    Comment by Mountain Man | March 19, 2007

38. "I think I’m over this debate. If there is no baseline (Scripture), then anything goes."

    Of course you are since you cannot accept anything unless it is based solely on scripture.

    Here is what the Catholic church has tosay about Sola Scriptura from Vatican II. The document, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained:
    "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

    "Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

    From MM - “No one here has said you need to have many children.” Now we are truly arguing circles. When is the number of children sufficient to not be sinning? And who decides? “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” If you believe this Scripture, a full quiver can only mean “many.”

    You seem to infer quite a lot. Talk about taking things out of context. From one scripture example you conclude that those who are opposed to contraception view not having many children is sinful. Which is simply not the case.

    I am coming to a clearer understanding of why sola scriptura is so flawed. We can spend days "truly arguing circles" with no agreement because so many people can interpret a passage in their own way. I am sure this is not what Christ intended for his people.

    Comment by Annasdad | March 19, 2007

39. The central theme here is that the Church is correct because there is a concensus of opinion before 1900 (because we never deride liberals for their demand that we accept Global Warming as fact simply because there's a consensus). When that position is challenged, the backup position is that the person making the argument isn't qualified to speak their opinion (another thing we mock liberals for).
    However, the problem with the first approach is that for the most part, scholors approach the Bible like they approach the law. People can make a conclusion unsupported or contradicted by the text they are studying. In law we see this in abortion (a completely made up principal that is supported entirely by decades of precident, but has no backing in the Constitution), and in gun control laws (an idea that completely goes against the Constitution, despite it's decades of precident). Most of us see the problem with this view of the law. Precident is not on the same level as the Constitution.
    Yet, when some of us take the opinion that scholorly opinions on the bible (religious equivalent of precident) are not equal to the Bible, the harrumphing begins.
    "HERETICS!"

    The Catholic Church is wrong on the issue of artificial ensemination. If someone cannot bare children on their own and they go to the doctor to help them conceive…they are following the Biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply". It is just as much a gift from God when the new embryo is implanted and takes as it is when it comes from sex.
    And yet it is in the same vein of thought that contraception and masturbation are banned.

    The base problem is this:
    "To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

    That's crap. The Church's word is not equal to the Bible. When Jesus came around he challenged hundreds of years of "common Biblical knowledge", on issues such as the Sabbath and divorce. He took the focus from the Church and brought it to the people. He spoke in simple, but eloquent, words. He simplified the ten commandments to the golden rule.

    As Christians our Holy Scripture is the word of Jesus, and the accounts of his followers (those who had direct contact with Jesus, who were commanded by him to spread the word), not the Abridged Opinions on Jesus by Those Who Have Studied Thousands of Years of Tradition".

    The Church holds itself infallible, because it has "the guidance of the Holy Spirit".
    And this leads to foolishness like every Ash Wednesday the Catholic Church reading the admonision against behaving like the Philistines while fasting (don't not tear your clothes or adorn your forehead with ashes), and then adorning everyone's forehead with ashes.

    Comment by WolvenBear | March 19, 2007

40. "That’s crap. The Church’s word is not equal to the Bible. "

    "And this leads to foolishness like every Ash Wednesday the Catholic Church…"

    Your insults do nothing to further the discussion and only serve to diminish your own arguments.

    "…behaving like the Philistines while fasting (don’t not tear your clothes or adorn your forehead with ashes), and then adorning everyone’s forehead with ashes."

    Obviously you don't understand the Catholic faith. And yet I will try to enlighten you on this. This is how we start the season of lent. The ashes remind us that we are like the philistines and need the season of lent to, "repent and believe in the gospel" as is said when we receive the ashes.

    "When Jesus came around he challenged hundreds of years of “common Biblical knowledge”, on issues such as the Sabbath and divorce."

    And yet he did not make it easier. He made it more difficult. Oh, and this is tradition, not scripture. Afterall, why is it we worship on Sunday and not on Saturday. Saturday is the Sabbath for the jews, not Sunday. However, from tradition we worship on Sunday as the new sabbath. This is decidedly not scriptural and Jesus did not tell us to do so.

    "Abridged Opinions on Jesus by Those Who Have Studied Thousands of Years of Tradition"

    Yet again, you don't understand what is meant by sacred tradition. And I am not going to try. Your response would be rather predictable.

    I asked you before, and I'll ask again, where do you, WolvenBear, get the authority to make such broad statements about the "incorrect" teachings of the Catholic church?

    Comment by Annasdad | March 19, 2007

41. Mountain Man,

    I don't know that I would go so far as to say that preventing a blessing is a sin, but the question people need to ask is "Why would I want to refuse a gift from the Almighty Creator of the Universe?" Moreover, I'm not so sure that everybody does, in fact, agree that children are a blessing.

    Coming from the Protestant perspective, I witness a troubling view of large families from the pulpit and the pews. Follow a mother of five into church sometime and watch the reaction. And how many sermons have you heard discussing the concept of asking God to plan your family? It is almost taboo.

    An interesting study in the Scriptures is one examining the consequences (Ishmaelites/Moabites) of people like Abraham and Sarah, Lot's daughters, and others who intervened in God's reproductive plan.

    As far as the purpose of marriage and sex, it's a false dilemma to state that it is either procreation or recreation. A verse that shows God's primary purpose for marriage is found in Malachi: "Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring" (Mal. 2:14).

    Jesus came that we may have life, and have it abundantly, but the number of arrows in a full quiver depends on the quiver. In other words, God knows best how many kids we need, not us.

    Comment by Jim | March 20, 2007

42. Mountain Man,

    Disagree with me if you must, but please don't misrepresent what I said. In post 34, you misrepresented my arguments from Scriptures. I will respond to correct those misrepresentations. You said:

    1) Obtain a Scripture or scriptural principle that everyone agrees with (children are a blessing)
    2) Make an inference (birth control prevents blessing).
    3) Make additional inferences (birth control is against God’s purpose, sex is only for procreation)
    4) From the inferences, draw a conclusion (preventing blessing is a sin, recreational sex is wrong, small families are contrary to God’s purpose)
    5) From the conclusion, infer an ancillary sin (using contraception is calling God a liar).

    Point 1. We agree.

    Point 2. It is more than a mere inference, it is an unavoidable inference that the purpose of birth control is to prevent conception. As children are a blessing (as you agree), then the unavoidable conclusion is that the purpose of birth control is to reject the potential of being blessed with a child. You may fail, of course; He is omnipotent and can cause your act to fail, but your purpose was to reject the potential of His blessing you when you use birth control.

    Point 3. Actually, there are two inferences here, not one. The first, which follows unavoidably from point 2 is that birth control seeks to thwart God's purpose should He will that a couple's sexual intercourse be the means of His blessing them with a child. The second inference which you make is an illogical leap from the first. Sex is not only for procreation; it has other functions, such as building a stronger relationship between the couple (an aspect of the unitive purpose of sex). But, procreation is a purpose for sexual intercourse — that is to say, God gave us sex as the means by which He may choose to bless a couple with a child.

    Point 4. Seeking to prevent a blessing from God is to seek to thwart His will. So yes, any act the purpose of which is to seek to prevent God blessing one as He might but for that act is a sin. You other two conclusions are non sequitur and were never proffered by me. Recreations (note that this word includes within it the word "creation") is indeed a purpose of sexual intercourse. It just is not the only purpose. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Family size is not the issue. God may choose not to bless a couple with any children (and that might indeed be a blessing for them). Another couple, like Abraham and Sarah, He may bless with only one child. Another couple, like Isaac and Rebekah, He may bless with two. The point is to be open to whatever He wills for you, like our Lord's mother, who declared, "Behold, I am the bondservant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" or like our Lord, who prayed, "[N]evertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

    Point 5. Of course, there may be medical reasons why a couple chooses to contracept, but most of the world contracepts because they want to limit the size of their family. If God limits the size of a couple's family, that is His will, but if we do so, the only conclusion to be drawn is that we value other things (and it is indeed often things that we value) more than we value children. That is to say, under those circumstances, that a would be child would not be a blessing, but a hindrance to what WE WANT, with in turn is to say that God lied (or was mistaken) when He declared a quiver full of children to be a blessing.

    That is my position, not the straw man which you constructed. It was also the UNIFORM and UNBROKEN understanding of 19 centuries of Christians and of many Christians even today, not just Catholics. (Indeed, the statistics I have seen show that both in raw numbers and in percentage terms, more Protestants than Catholics in the United States reject the use of birth control.) They could all be wrong, but you have not made an argument for why we should believe so; you have merely casted aspersions at those who believe otherwise.

    Again, I pray that you will seriously study and pray over this issue. May God Bless you.

    Comment by Unchanging Truth | March 20, 2007

43. The Church's position on artificial birth control as expressed in the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" is the pet obsession of conservative Catholics. First of all, I believe that an "ideal" is being set forth in this teaching—but on the other hand, most people cannot live up to this ideal 100%. I am speaking about married couples, not people engaging in a casual sexual relationship. Is this burden too heavy on married Catholic couples? I believe so. I believe that Humanae Vitae was written before legalized abortion occured in the US (al-though it was common practice in the Communist world.) I bring this up as a matter of practicality. I believe it is far less of a transgression to use birth control than to abort. Getting away from RC Church doctrine, I would advocate birthcontrol (of whatever type) rather than having a women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. It's far from a morally perfect scenario (in RC Church's eyes), but I nor anyone else has the power to prevent people from having sex–licitly or illicitly. I think Hannity is speaking from a more practical view.

    Comment by Brooklyn Dave | April 23, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Site info

Copyright 2001-2008 IntellectualConservative.com. All Rights Reserved.