Fertility and the Future by Steve Watters on 05/02/2007 at 9:25 AM

Does it make any difference if you never have kids? 

On a personal level, you'll get a better sense of that answer the older you get. If you don't have kids, you'll find that you have a lot more time and money at your disposal and there will be additional things you can do and see. You'll never quite know until you get there, however, what the choice not to have kids will be for you in old age. In a footnote to an article reprinted on Boundless, Dr. Leon Kass explains that, "A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation, even where it is a price willingly paid by couples who deliberately do not procreate."

Dr. Dobson talked about the choice of children last month in his newsletter. "Admittedly, children are costly in every way," he says, "The emotional and spiritual investment required is immense, not to mention the financial commitment." But he goes on to explain why parents shouldn't intentionally avoid the blessing of children.

Moving beyond the personal level, however, Dr. Dobson points to a trend that is accumulating as more and more couples decide against children or end up delaying children until they are unable to conceive. He points out that the fertility rate in America has dropped 43% since 1960 and is now below replacement level. But this is nowhere as bad as what's happening globally. He adds:

Some researchers believe that birthrates in the United States will eventually fall as low as those in some European countries, where the population is in a state of dangerous decline. In Japan, schools close on a regular basis due to the shortage of children.

Interestingly, the person much more concerned about the cumulative effects of a lot of people choosing not to have kids comes from the other side of the political spectrum -- from Philip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle. In a compelling new piece published in Christianity Today, sociologist Brad Wilcox interviews Longman about the effect of fertility trends on the future.

Longman, a progressive (or liberal) is most concerned that the progressive agenda is in danger because its adherents are not sending voters into the next generation. He tells Wilcox:

It's fair to say that most self-described "progressives" don't agree with me that low fertility is a problem. Many environmentalists, for example, believe that fewer people means a cleaner environment. Other progressives suppose that a decline in population would increase the amount of food and other resources available to the poor. Many feminists, gays, and "childless by choice" people in general feel threatened by suggestions that society needs more children.

Longman ends the interview explaining that in his estimation people of faith will inherit the Earth.

To be sure, religious fundamentalists of all varieties are themselves having fewer children than in the past. But whether they be Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or Islamic or Christian fundamentalists, devout member of these Abrahamic religions have on average far larger families than do the secular elements within their society.  ... Though children born into religious families often do not become religious themselves, many do, especially if they themselves go on to have children. Meanwhile, of course, the childless stand no chance of passing along their values to their progeny.

The faithful thus begin to inherit society by default. The West's total population may fall or stagnate, perhaps for quite awhile; but those who remain will be disproportionately committed to God and family, whether they be Christians, Muslims, Jews, or members of new pro-natal faiths.

Fertility and the Future by Steve Watters on 05/02/2007 at 9:25 AM

Does it make any difference if you never have kids? 

On a personal level, you'll get a better sense of that answer the older you get. If you don't have kids, you'll find that you have a lot more time and money at your disposal and there will be additional things you can do and see. You'll never quite know until you get there, however, what the choice not to have kids will be for you in old age. In a footnote to an article reprinted on Boundless, Dr. Leon Kass explains that, "A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation, even where it is a price willingly paid by couples who deliberately do not procreate."

Dr. Dobson talked about the choice of children last month in his newsletter. "Admittedly, children are costly in every way," he says, "The emotional and spiritual investment required is immense, not to mention the financial commitment." But he goes on to explain why parents shouldn't intentionally avoid the blessing of children.

Moving beyond the personal level, however, Dr. Dobson points to a trend that is accumulating as more and more couples decide against children or end up delaying children until they are unable to conceive. He points out that the fertility rate in America has dropped 43% since 1960 and is now below replacement level. But this is nowhere as bad as what's happening globally. He adds:

Some researchers believe that birthrates in the United States will eventually fall as low as those in some European countries, where the population is in a state of dangerous decline. In Japan, schools close on a regular basis due to the shortage of children.

Interestingly, the person much more concerned about the cumulative effects of a lot of people choosing not to have kids comes from the other side of the political spectrum -- from Philip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle. In a compelling new piece published in Christianity Today, sociologist Brad Wilcox interviews Longman about the effect of fertility trends on the future.

Longman, a progressive (or liberal) is most concerned that the progressive agenda is in danger because its adherents are not sending voters into the next generation. He tells Wilcox:

It's fair to say that most self-described "progressives" don't agree with me that low fertility is a problem. Many environmentalists, for example, believe that fewer people means a cleaner environment. Other progressives suppose that a decline in population would increase the amount of food and other resources available to the poor. Many feminists, gays, and "childless by choice" people in general feel threatened by suggestions that society needs more children.

Longman ends the interview explaining that in his estimation people of faith will inherit the Earth.

To be sure, religious fundamentalists of all varieties are themselves having fewer children than in the past. But whether they be Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or Islamic or Christian fundamentalists, devout member of these Abrahamic religions have on average far larger families than do the secular elements within their society.  ... Though children born into religious families often do not become religious themselves, many do, especially if they themselves go on to have children. Meanwhile, of course, the childless stand no chance of passing along their values to their progeny.

The faithful thus begin to inherit society by default. The West's total population may fall or stagnate, perhaps for quite awhile; but those who remain will be disproportionately committed to God and family, whether they be Christians, Muslims, Jews, or members of new pro-natal faiths.

Comments

[1. John M. said the following at 10:14 AM on May 2:]

1

"A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation". While I agree with most of the article, I think the above statement needs to be fact checked. Studies have shown that having children has little net long-term effect on subjective levels of happiness. See the following.

http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/prc/pdfs/kohler05.pdf

[2. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 11:09 AM on May 2:]

2

Hmm. Ours is a truly scandalous situation in regard to the falling birthrate and its social consequences, but with all due respect to Mr. Dobson, I think his lament to be rather ironic considering the practice of contraception is well entrenched in contemporary Christian circles. Thus, it is insisted upon that "children are a blessing from God", but certainly not too many of course... and then we go on to decry the admittedly tragic situation emerging in the West precipitated by low birthrates. Who is to blame for that?

Could it be that we have tacitly accepted a practice that is rending the social fabric of our society apart with narry a protest to the contrary? When it comes to evanglical Christians it is high time a more adequate examination of contraception is undertaken instead of simply hoping those fanatical Catholic anti-contraception zealots are wrong. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[3. kman said the following at 11:14 AM on May 2:]

3

I think if your main goal and hope in life is to have children/grandchilcren then yes I'd say it would be " a sadness and a deprivation."

I am married and cannot have children. It was not a happy discovery and took time to come to terms with. But I know this: My hope is in the Lord, regardless of my circumstances. Some people are sterile, or blind or paraplegic or any other of a number of
problems. God is still sovereign and makes ALL things work together for those who love Him. It is liberating to understand this, what the world may look at with pity, God sees as an opportunity to display His glory.

I have even used my situation to bring perspective to others. A friend of mine was lamenting that he would never get the car of his dreams. I said "Let me put that in perspective, I will never have children. Doesn't make the car thing that look so important now does it?" LOL

The other thing I keep in mind is that this world is a passing thing. When the Lord calls me home these cares and concerns will no longer be a part of my life. I will exchange the corruptible for the incorruptible.

[4. Holly said the following at 11:32 AM on May 2:]

4

Boundless has a long history of asserting that everyone must have children (some articles by J. Bud-unpronounceable last name come to mind). While having children is doubtless the right choice for most Christians, it is not a commandment. There is no Biblical requirement that all couples have children. There are plenty of inheritable medical conditions that make life very difficult, and not wanting to pass that on to another person is a legitimate reason not to procreate. (Disclosure: that is my reason for not procreating.) Many childless couples of my acquaintance do a lot of good with their time and money. Robert and Joy have put all of their nieces and nephews, plus four kids from our church, through college. As far as the accusations of selfishness...if someone knows before they have a child that they are too selfish to be a good parent, and they are not HIGHLY motivated to overcome that character defect, isn't it better that they not procreate? Would we, as a society, prefer those people to have kids who will be neglected emotionally and poorly supervised? Also, having children can be motivated by selfishness. The universal objection to childlessness-by-choice is, "Who's going to take care of you when you're old?" followed by, "You're selfish!" LOL.

The argument about spreading faith and conservative ideology by having more children is flimsy. Growing up in a Christian family or attending Christian schools is no guarantee that a Christian adult will result. A young boy named Brian Warner went to Christian schools. You may know him by his stage name, Marilyn Manson.

Lastly, I used to work as an obituary writer. Obits listing no kids as survivors were just as full of accomplishments (often more so), community involvement, and other evidence of productivity and functional citizenship as obits listing one or more children as surviving the decedent. And as to the "childless old age" idea, guess what? The OVERWHELMING majority of the thousands of obituaries I wrote said the person died in a nursing home, even when there were dozens of adults in the family -- often six or more children, two dozen grandchildren, and 40 or 50 great-grandchildren, and where was Granny? In a nursing home.

Who's going to take care of me when I'm old? The seven-dollar-an-hour staff at the nursing home - the same as the VAST majority of parents.

[5. xeres said the following at 11:49 AM on May 2:]

5

Holly, this world is messed up as it is. We pretty idolized every single thing we could get our hands on to a point where it seems that there is no use uphold the Christian perspective on anything anymore without benting it to our own understanding.

On the sidenote, children are a blessing.

[6. Erica said the following at 11:57 AM on May 2:]

6

I always enjoy reading your blogs. Remember that it is only in the first world countries that the populating has been falling since industrialization. Since industrialization, opportunities has been opened for girls to attend school. When girls attend school and college she will start having children at a later age than her friends who have not attend school neither complete high school. She will also have less children and will find it easier to adequately look after her children. This is noticed in the third world countries also.

Conctraception is not a bad thing for married couples as some of you have mentioned. Note I did not say singles. It gives a woman's body an opportunity to recover after child birth. A woman's body doesn't completely heal until 2 years after delivery. It puts her in a better frame of mind and makes her less depressed when her children are not born too close together. I once heard a woman said how shame she felt to have 2 years old, 9 months old and is pregnant with a third one.

Frequently I read here that the best childbirth period is in your twenties and that woman in their thirties is not as fertile as a woman in her twenties. Child bearing period begins at puberty 10-12 and can last until the late forties. My mother has her first child at 16 and me, her last was born, when she was 37 years. Her child bearing period spanned 21 years where she has given birth to 9 children. Seven survived infancy. One her friends too started during teenage years and have her last children (twins) at 49 years. This lady has 16 children. All of this lady's pregnancies are normal as IVF is not known in this part of the island I live on. Those two children weighed 1 pound each at birth.

My mother always told me we women in this time are fortunate we have the choice whether we want a child or not. They didn't have contraceptives. I read in the Times Magazines that Audrey Yates and her Russell Yates said on their wedding day they will not use contraceptive. Three months later she was pregnant and end up given birth to 6 children in 8 years. She was a stay at home mom who homeschool her older children. Given birth to so many children took a toll on her mind.

A lot of your blogs condemn contraceptives for marriage couples. I believe some of your readers are students who have not faced with the responsible of dealing with a toddler. If they have two toddlers, 3 year old, 18 months have to look after 6 month old baby they will be singing a different tune.

[7. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 12:07 PM on May 2:]

7

I pose an informal question to all here: how many of you are willing to clean out your medicine cabinets of birth control pills and condoms? Or, if you are engaged to married, or hope to marry someday, how many of you are willing to forego their use altogether?

[8. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 12:36 PM on May 2:]

8

Holly and Eric: the proper response to a loving Creator who gave you life is not, "I know better".

[9. Mandi said the following at 12:59 PM on May 2:]

9

"how many of you are willing to clean out your medicine cabinets of birth control pills and condoms?"

Whoa. Abortifacients (birth control pills) and non-abortifacients (condoms) should not be lumped as evil in the same breath. One can interfere with an already-conceived human being's survival (according to the drug makers themselves), and the other can never. People can make arguments all around about expenses, neglect, and whatever else in terms of controlling family size, but surely one thing we can *all* agree about as Christians is that methods of birth control that sometimes result in the killing of our children are out of bounds.

That said, it is neither biblical to view children as strictly expenses (as the vehemently pro-contraceptive crowd generally does), nor as justifications of sex between married couples (as the vehemently anti-contraceptive crowd does).

re: "Catholic anti-contraceptive zealots"

The Roman Church's teachings about contraception stem in large part from its own innovations in terms of teaching on sex. This business that every act of sexual intercourse should be "open" to procreation, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that it would be *sinful* for a husband and wife to make love *knowing* that either was not fertile. That would mean that technically, a man and his wife could only make love about 4 or 5 days a month. That thinking cannot even be supported by the nature God created us with: that women are not always fertile. If we were, there might be some merit to that argument. But God has created us with a very limited ability and timeframe within which we are fertile.

And that's not simply in terms of the number of days a month, but even in terms of the seasons of life. Nursing moms who *exclusively* breastfeed and do not rely on soothers or bottles for comfort, feeding, etc., find that such nursing naturally suppresses their ovulation. (That's why many women in "less developed" countries often have at least 2 years of space between their kids, despite the lack of availability of more artificial spacers.) Married couples beyond their fertile years do not sin by continuing to engage in sexual intercourse; any "openness" to procreation based on reading the *miracles* in the Scriptures about the conception of certain prophets is a rather superficial "openness". The same is true for married couples who are infertile; God has chosen to close the womb in such situations, but that does not mean that their sex is any less holy.

The Roman Church also lives out this diminished view of sex in another of its innovations, celibate priesthood as the norm (which I commented on at "Makin on Piper").

The Scriptures themselves speak about how "marriage is honourable among all and the bed undefiled". Consenual sex between a husband and wife is holy. Period. It need not be justified by "openness" to conception for it to be so. That is what the Bible teaches. That is what the Early Church, which chose the books to be canonized in the Bible, taught. Were it not so, the Bible is explicit enough in its commands about sexual intercourse that it would have made the Roman innovation clear.

None of this is to say that the *separate* issue of being fruitful and multiplying means having more than 1 or 2 kids if people are physically able to. The de-population of our communities is surely a reflection of a turn away from such Scripture.

Nor is it to say that the pro-contraceptive choice mindset leads to a biblical view of children. It often doesn't. It can easily lead one away from the biblical view of children as blessings to a view that they're expenses, rights, accessories, etc. But it doesn't necessarily -- so we shouldn't be quick to condemn those who would *never* knowingly use an abortifacient as being two-faced or anti-children.

[10. DrLiz said the following at 1:04 PM on May 2:]

10

I'll take the bait, Jeffery. I would not use artificial forms of birth control if I got married. Admittedly, at 39 and single, this isn't likely to make a difference anyway. Except that even at my "advanced" age, I will not marry someone who is not willing to have children if we are so blessed.

Now, if I had had the chance to marry young, I would use Natural Family Planning (which is NOT the "rythmn method" and is as effective if not more effective than other forms of birth control) if I wanted to limit or try to limit my family size. This would also help with the spacing issue, as would extended breast feeding, although the later is not feasible for some working mothers and is not a guarantee of delayed return of fertility.

I admit, I'm pretty passionate about this issue, and I stand alone among my evangelical protestant friends on this one. These are women in their early 30's who have no problem telling God they are done with having children. The thing is, I can admit that my view on this topic is affected by being 39 and childless (and single). They can't seem to admit that their situations also affect their view on the matter. I've done a lot of research on this, and thought about it and prayed about it. But if they take me seriously and really listen to me, they might have to rethink decisions that were made long ago for largely pragmatic, worldly reasons. I'm not saying there is never a case for birth control, but I do believe that the vast majority of the church buys into the world's view of children as burdens not blessings (e.g.,children are what happens when birth control 'fails').

[11. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 1:07 PM on May 2:]

11

I already posted on this on the article 'Marriage and the "Valour of Youth"'. I think it is worth mentioning again as it is more applicable to this topic. So here it is:

"Getting married young is the best way to go! People should get married between 17-22, no later. You should also have kids immediately after getting married and never use birth control throughout your entire marriage (which should last as long as you are both alive). Then raise your kids in the fear of the Lord, and remember to teach them to do the same thing. After about three generations conservative Christians would so outnumber any other group that we would easily lead this country with much less taxes and much less government intervention. It would be great! I know I'm doing my part!"

It seems someone actually read my post.

xeres had the following to say on Apr 23 at 5:59 PM

"Zeph, are you totally serious, totally joking or in between?"

Well I actually hoped that people would do what I said, but I really didn't think that they would so I wrote out a response to clarify:

"xeres:

I would be serious if I thought people would take me seriously. I got married at 21 while my wife was 19 and we have been married a year and have our first child. I'm honestly very thrilled with where I'm at and although I know it isn't possible for everyone to follow the same path I did there are so many people who just dismiss it outright. They would say that its too young or that they need to finish college or some other priority.

With liberals in our society delaying marriage and using birth control, they're pushing America towards an average of 1.2 children per couple. Now it seems that someone, possibly those same people, has done a great job attaching a negative stigma towards people with big families. I say its time we countered that and thought of children as the blessing that God describes them as.

If we were to raise our children to follow in the same pattern it is not difficult to see that the political arena would shift dramatically once our posterities' posterities were adults. Imagine after just two generations of conservatives having on average between six and ten children while liberal families only have one or two. It would be quite different to say the least.

Now I know not all children choose to follow in their parents footsteps and there would still be quite a variety of opinions. There would probably still be some children who manage to shift all the way to the left regardless of their upbringing. However I'm just playing the odds here and since children tend to follow closely to their parents and because there would be so many children of conservative parents that given some time there would be a whole lot more conservatives.

This is my plan for political reform in this country. We might be able to even get rid of income tax! The thing is it takes everyone working together. As you can tell by the post on this blog even people who normally agree can't find a consensus on what is the best plan for marriage and family. Maybe I should start some sort of non-profit political group, but though I know this plan would work I'm not sure I could convince people to implement it."

[12. Becky F. said the following at 1:17 PM on May 2:]

12

Just because a person uses birth control doesn't mean they don't intend to have a lot of children. My parents used various forms of BC between each of their 5 children, and we are all 2 to 2½ years apart... purposefully. They did this so that they wouldn't have tons of babies/toddlers at one time. It's easier to care for your children (my mom stayed at home with us and homeschooled for 15 years) when they are spaced far enough apart that the older siblings can understand why mom can't devote all her time to them anymore, and those older siblings can do many things for themselves.

At the beginning of last year my then-fiance and I did a lot of thinking and researching on birth control. I know many of the readers here think that birth control pills are wrong (because they believe pills are abortofacients), but if it prevents any ovulation from occuring, there is no fertilization taking place, but I don't want to start an argument on BC pills, just stating my personal opinion. I was really struggling with whether I wanted to use any form of birth control, because I wasn't sure if it would be right at all. However, God did give us free will, and he allowed smart people to develop modern medicine for our benefit. So, I was on BC pills for a few months, and my biggest concern was how the hormones would affect my body (I gained like 20lbs, which is why after I deliver our baby I'm not going to use hormonal BC anymore).

My husband is a full-time seminary student. He has two whole years before he gets a job as a pastor of a church. Last year when we got married it was three years left of seminary, two of those years with me being the primary income, because this next coming year he has an internship instead of classes. How responsible would it have been for us to just forgo any family planning and just see what happens when we knew we wouldn't be having a very good income for a few years? And again, how responsible would it be for us to not use BC again after this baby is born and potentially have a 2nd baby before he's done with seminary, and then neither of us would be able to work?

Having a baby is expensive: insurance, nursery items, clothing, and diapers especially, etc. My 19 year old sister and her husband are living with my parents right now because she got pregnant before they got married, so they obviously weren't planning for things. I don't think God wants us to almost willingly live paycheck-to-paycheck because we did not plan for the future and did not delay children, at least for a little while. My husband and I only delayed the possibility of conception for 5 months, but we had that time to really plan out our finances over the coming years. My older sister used/uses BC, but she's hoping to have at least 4 children (and she's halfway there at 25 years old).

I don't think that family planning, whether using BC between pregnancies/children or not, is wrong. It is exercising good stewardship over the resources God has given you.

Birth control does not equal IUDs, hormone pills, patches, etc., and morning after pills only. The rhythm method and barrier methods, when used properly can be very effective. If a Christian couple is mutually abstaining during the woman's fertile time of the month, is that form of birth control wrong?

Sorry this got so long. :)

[13. nikki said the following at 1:20 PM on May 2:]

13

Boundless likes people to get married, and believes most apparent outside "barriers" to marriage are surmountable. All this is rightly so! But, cannot those same "barriers" make a poor or undesirable environment for raising children? If my boyfriend and I get married when we'd like to, we will both have another year of college left after the wedding. I doubt that two full-time students would make excellent parents. (We will likely be "scrimping by" as it is.) I don't see anything wrong with waiting another year or two to bring children into the world...in fact, it seems the much wiser path. If we'd like to enter into the marriage relationship sooner rather than later (as Boundless would strongly encourage, and I would as well), then perhaps the trade-off should be delaying offspring. Surely there is a wiser time and a "foolisher" time to bear children, just as there is for nearly every other decision in life?

In my situation, at least how I view it from this point in time (and I know it might change as I grow older), there would be several good reasons wait to procreate, and no good reasons not to wait. The only negative consequence I can think of: waiting too long and becoming infertile from old age. I'm 21 now so I'm not stressed about that quite yet. ;)

[14. John M. said the following at 1:26 PM on May 2:]

14

kman,

"I think if your main goal and hope in life is to have children/grandchilcren then yes I'd say it would be " a sadness and a deprivation."

Sure, but the article didn't qualify it with an "if". It made a universal statement. Also note: Even if your lifelong goal is to have kids, take into account that it's still possible for them to make you miserable no matter how much you love them.

[15. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 1:34 PM on May 2:]

15

I also want to let Erica know that if a woman is breastfeeding exclusively and not returning to work it is very likely she will not get pregnant again for over a year and possible she might not even have a period for two whole years. DrLiz was refering to this when she said "natural child spacing". There is a lot of information on it. You can check with La Leeche League or check out the book "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing".

[16. Mandi said the following at 2:03 PM on May 2:]

16

"I know many of the readers here think that birth control pills are wrong (because they believe pills are abortofacients), but if it prevents any ovulation from occuring, there is no fertilization taking place, but I don't want to start an argument on BC pills, just stating my personal opinion."

Neither do I (want to start an argument), Becky F., but for the sake of clarity and truth, I would add the following to my previous comments.

Preventing ovulation = contraceptive. That's not killing.

Preventing *implantation* = abortive.

Something that's sometimes contraceptive and sometimes abortive (and you'll never know which because it all happens inside) = abortifacient.

Terminology is key here.

It is a common misconception that the Pill only works by either preventing sperm from reaching the egg or by preventing ovulation. If that's all it did, it would be strictly contraceptive.

But drug companies that make the pills clearly identify at least one other mode of operation: thinning of the lining of the womb (endometrium). If the first two mechanisms fail (thereby producing a human being), this one kicks in. And that is besides the fact that the drug makers instruct you to double or triple up on doses if you miss a pill, which is the same as taking the "morning-after" pill.

Again, terminology is key.

Pro-aborts and drug makers are able to claim that the Pill doesn't sometimes cause abortions because they've conveniently (and deviously) re-defined when "pregnancy" begins to the point of "implantation". Some of their literature on this is so appallingly misleading, they actually claim that implantation of "the egg" (what "egg" are they talking about after conception???) as a mechanism. Unfortunately, some of those sources are only hard copies. (Other sources shamelessly admit interference with a "fertilized egg".)

Here's a *small sample* (I've got lots more where this came from) of the information available online about the science of this, minus the philosophical issue of whether controlling family size per se is right or wrong:

http://www.epm.org/articles/larimore_list.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html -- (note that these "failure" rates should mean nothing to Christians, or other pro-lifers, because of a the ready admission that the "success" rates *include* prevention of implantation)

http://www.polycarp.org/postfert_oc.htm

http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?id=466 shows the typical language used for these pills in the "Physicians' Prescribing Info" (as opposed to the glossy, colorful, large-print literature distributed to patients, where such information is often omitted) about the mode of action of these pills: "Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotrophins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations *include* changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) *and the endometrium (which reduce the liklihood of implantation)*" (my emphasis).

God bless.

[17. Anna said the following at 3:09 PM on May 2:]

17

Zeph, you said "Imagine after just two generations of conservatives having on average between six and ten children while liberal families only have one or two. It would be quite different to say the least."

While it's an interesting idea, I really disagree with the premise that more kids born in conservative families would necessarily equal more conservatives in the future.

I am one of 6 kids raised in a Christian, moderate-conservative home. Now that we range from 15-24, only 2 of us are still in the church (2 others say they don't even believe in God). None of us could be called politically conservative -- I myself consider myself moderate-liberal.

Obviously this is totally anecdotal, and no doubt the beliefs of especially my younger siblings aren't set in stone, but I feel like my family shows that being a loving, conservative, Christian parent does not guarantee that your kids will turn out exactly like you.

I plan on having 3 or 4 children and loving them, teaching them, and raising them in the church, but I know that they will be the ones who ultimately chose what they believe.

[18. Jethro said the following at 3:20 PM on May 2:]

18

Jeffrey,

My wife and I use birth control (the pill) because at this point in our lives we have no desire to have children. The problem with that is?

[19. Mandi said the following at 3:43 PM on May 2:]

19

Jethro,

I can't speak for Jeffrey, but the problem with your use of the pill is the abortifacient nature of that form of birth control, as outlined in the comments above. If you don't want kids at this time, at least don't use methods of birth control that are *made* to interfere with the implantation of a newly conceived child if the contraceptive mechanisms fail.

[20. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 3:55 PM on May 2:]

20

I note some very interesting comments here.

Did any of you know that "birth-control" was not a Catholic/Protestant issue until 1930 when the Anglican Lambeth Conference became the very first religious body claiming the name Christian to allow contraception. Granted, they did not possess chemical contraceptives, but the situation is clearly analogous.

All chemical contraceptives are also abortifacient as well. This is well documented, even by the manufacturers themselves.

DrLiz: bravo!

Jethro: Why is contraception wrong? Because it is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

[21. ccinnova said the following at 4:28 PM on May 2:]

21

I'm deeply disturbed by the harsh and judgmental tone of some of the comments in this thread.

There are various reasons why some couples may choose not to have children either for a period of time or not at all. Some of the considerations could be health-related, others may be economic. Or perhaps a couple may have married later in life and choose not to have children because of age or health issues.

The declining fertility rate is an important issue, but simply telling people to marry young and have lots of babies irrespective of economic considerations, hereditary diseases and other factors is not the solution. God provides, but He also expects us to use godly wisdom in making important life-changing decisions.

[22. Rachel said the following at 4:38 PM on May 2:]

22

Jethro:
The pill can work as an abortefacient. I'd call that a problem.

I wonder what it is that people find objectionable about Natural Family Planning. Sure, it takes a little more work, but it also aids in self-discipline and self-control, and requires the couple to really examine whether or not God wants them to have a new child each month.

Mandi:
I'm not sure you understand the Catholic position on sex and marriage. If you're really interested, there are several good commentaries on the Theology of the Body by Christopher West. I'd recommend checking them out. The Church certainly does NOT teach that a couple is sinning by having sex when the couple is not fertile; in fact, the Church teaches that it is sometimes appropriate and responsible to only engage in the marital act during these times in order to delay the conception of children. The teaching is that the ACT of intercourse cannot be tampered with.

Just thought you might like to know what the Church really says.

Interesting link, btw, about Catholics and Protestants concerning contraception:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Enjoy!

-Rachel

[23. Marci said the following at 5:00 PM on May 2:]

23

DrLiz,

OHHHHH NOOOOO you didn't lol! Let me tell you how this lady I know got pregnant with all FIVE of her children on the "rhythm method"! This method is NOT neccessarily safe - a woman's body must be very very stable and predicatable for it to work. Based on this, I certainly *certainly* will not be relying upon this method when I marry.

Personally, I'm considering using either birthcontrol (I agree with Becky F's stance that birthcontrol is not neccessarily abortive, etc) or an IUD (which I'm leaning towards, beacuse I don't want the hassle of always trying to remember if I took my magic pill for the day, and apparently, it's got a phenomenal prevention rate).

So I differ: I will most certainly use birth control because I do not want to wind up pregnant in the first two years of marriage. After the first two years, I'm good to go (of course, if my husband and I get 'blessed' before we've planned, there's nothing more to say but 'not my will, Lord, but yours be done' lol!)

My 2 cents

Blessings to you all!

[24. Marci said the following at 5:09 PM on May 2:]

24

Hello All!

Question: Do people consider IUD's contraception or abortificants? I want to hear your thoughts on this one.

Blessings to you all!

[25. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 6:21 PM on May 2:]

25

Jeffrey Whiting -

What would be your take on a woman (married or not) who takes birth control pills solely for the purpose of controlling her menstrual cycle so that she is not crippled with pain one week out of every month?

[26. Ana said the following at 7:09 PM on May 2:]

26

Children of the Refomration: A Short and Surprising History of Protestantism and Contraception
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2003/0603Wolf.html

"It was obvious to the Protestant Reformers that the natural purpose in marital union was procreative as well as unitive. This revelation of God in natural law was reflected in His dealing with Onan, who, in Genesis 38, was commanded by his father, Judah, to take his late brother Er’s wife as his own, in order that their offspring might be counted as Er’s, receiving his inheritance (a Levirate marriage). Onan took Er’s wife into his bed but “wasted his seed on the ground” and, thus, contracepted. Moses tells us that “the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him . . . ”

Modern Protestant scholars insist that it was what Onan intended to do—thwart the purpose of the Levirate marriage—that displeased God. After all, you cannot thwart God’s providence, no matter how hard you try, and Onan was under no natural law and, thus, had freedom to contracept in any other situation. Historic Protestantism, on the other hand, unanimously saw the action of Onan as a violation of natural law. In his commentary on Genesis, Martin Luther called Onan’s act sodomy:

[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.

John Calvin agreed, calling Onan’s act “doubly monstrous” and tantamount to a “violent abortion” in which the “offspring of his brother” was “torn from the mother’s womb” and “cast on the ground.” Similar natural-law arguments were made by John Wesley, the great Baptist Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and Reformed commentator Matthew Henry, among countless others.

[27. Steve Watters said the following at 7:21 PM on May 2:]

27

Several people commented on the fact that the babies of conservative or Christian parents won't necessarily be conservative or religious when they grow up. There is some truth in that. My twin brother who grew up with me in a pastor's home turned out to be quite a prodigal. We know also that there's a lot of concern about Christian parents not passing their faith on to the next generation.

Philip Longman, however, states in the quote from my post, "Though children born into religious families often do not become religious themselves, many do, especially if they themselves go on to have children."

He's done his homework and I've seen other sociologists reinforce the point that a substantial number of people raised in Christian homes do end up holding on to or at least coming back to their faith (often when they have children as Longman noted). The likelihood of Christian parents passing along their faith is strong enough that people like Longman are warning their fellow liberal friends about the real possibility he sees of the babies in today's church nurseries having a strong influence over the next generation.

[28. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 7:28 PM on May 2:]

28

I have had the opportunity to talk to a few Middle Eastern students about a topic relevant to this post. In their culture, parents provide almost everything for their children until they are 21 or so. One of my friends that lived in Dubai before coming to my university said that it is almost unheard of for high school students to get part time jobs (bear in mind that families that can send their children to study in the West are probably fairly well-off). When your parents are elderly, you are expected to care for them. In our society (in Canada even more than in the US), the state has replaced the family as the institution that provides for the young and the old. I'm not sure which way is better; the family seems more natural, but provision by the state makes it less likely that people will "slip through the cracks" if they are poor or childless.

[29. Kate said the following at 7:47 PM on May 2:]

29

Mandi, you're right that God gives us only a limited time of fertility, but this simply confirms the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that contraception is wrong because it disrespects the body and the beauty and holiness of God's design for sex! God is *so* loving - He gives us an abundance of days during the month in which we can make love with our spouse and not become pregnant, if we have serious reasons for not having a baby right now. Fertility is His gift and it is *good* - it's not a disease to be controlled by taking the Pill or using condoms.

When the Catholic Church speaks of the marital act being "open to life" it means open by its *nature*, not by its degree. Contraception is wrong because it changes the nature, or the orientation, of the sexual act. Infertile and older couples can still have open-to-life sex because they can still give themselves completely to each other in the full act of love that by God's design is *oriented towards life*.

Although couples often use them in good faith, using a condom when making love is an unloving and deeply irreverent act. At the very moment a man is meant to be giving himself totally to his wife, he ejaculates into a piece of latex - not into her body. They do not physically become "one flesh" because they are not giving and receiving their bodies in their wholeness and goodness.

This is the nub of the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception - because whether the contraceptive is internal or external (excepting genuine medical uses of the Pill) you are rejecting a part of your body or your spouse's body - and not a trivial part, but their very masculinity or femininity - their very bodiliness as male and female.

God's design for sexual intercourse is profound and wonderful. It is disrespectful to God not to reverence His design and to appreciate and use the periods of fertility and infertility that He has so lovingly given us!

For Christians, it also goes against the sacramentality of marriage - "the great mystery" of which Paul speaks in Ephesians. The love between husband and wife is meant to physically image Christ's free, total, faithful and fruitful love for His bride, the Church.

Of course sex is holy and it's never wrong to want to make love with your spouse and to seek that union for pleasure and bonding. But our bodies are a *gift* and lovemaking must always affirm the other person's body in their wholeness, including their fertility or their infertility. When we engage in sexual intercourse we must give and receive each other totally - just as we are at that very moment! - because this is how God loves us. And because God's love is life-giving, so the act of love is oriented, by its nature, towards life.

[30. Holly said the following at 7:50 PM on May 2:]

30

Jeffrey Whiting...for me to procreate, a specific situation is required. Namely, a husband who, besides meeting all necessary standards of Godliness, can provide a living situation with easy access to numerous specialists, for both me and the future child/children, the significant financial resources required to pay for extensive medical care and therapy, the financial resources to pay for the extensive help with childcare that my condition would require (or the financial resources allowing him to work only part-time, from home), and the emotional and spiritual maturity to cope with it all. When God wants me to procreate, those things will be provided. As my fertility is waning (in part due to my medical issues), it is a reasonable belief on my part that God does not want me to procreate -- He and I seem to share the belief that society can do without my genes being passed along. Your presumptive, judgmental comment directed at me demonstrates that you do not possess these necessary qualities and thus cannot provide what is required. Unless and until you do, it is YOU who is saying to the creator that YOU know best -- and not best for yourself, but best for me, a woman you've never met. Every once in a while, I wonder why my cousins tell me that I'm the only Christian they know who doesn't automatically think the worst of people. Thank you for helping to answer that question. It gives me something to pray about.

[31. k. said the following at 8:36 PM on May 2:]

31

Personally, I've pretty much always known I wanted kids, whether biologically or through adoption. A coworker of mine just as vehemently does NOT want them (and refers to parents as "breeders"). Honestly? I don't think she'd do a very good job of parenting, and it's probably just as well that's not on her list of goals.

As an aside, I have a friend who doesn't believe in birth control. She got pregnant on her honeymoon, and had three children VERY closely together (natural spacing didn't work for them). Although she wouldn't go back and do anything differently given the chance, it did take a toll on her physical and emotional health (both post-partum depression, and difficult pregnancies). I, on the other hand, am not the type to get pregnant without wanting to. I think both our perspectives are valid. If you want to have six children, great, go for it. It's also okay to *not* want a huge brood.

[32. Becky F. said the following at 8:57 PM on May 2:]

32

I think matters like birth control are going to have to be between individual people and God. Obviously, there is a variance of opinion between different Christians, just like on all issues (which is why the Church will never be unified).

[33. Heather said the following at 9:42 PM on May 2:]

33

There are a lot of good reasons why Christians should not accept the world's view on birth control. Until 1930, the "crazy Catholics" (that includes me) were not the only Christians who thought birth control was wrong. Touchstone Magazine has an excellent article about birth control and Protestants, "Children of the Reformation," that I would encourage everyone to read. You can find it here: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Also, to Mandi, I gather that you are part of an Orthodox church. I respect the Orthodox churches very much, and I am interested in hearing the perspective of Christians in those churches. However, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps you are not the most qualified person to say what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or believes about marriage or sex? Because you have misstated several Catholic beliefs in your recent posts. I don't have time to correct all of your statements, but I would say that it is absolutely false that the Catholic Church only allows sex during a woman's fertile period. For a very well-reasoned explanation of the Catholic teaching on the unitive and procreative nature of sex, there is a great article by Elizabeth Anscombe, "Contraceptio and Chastity" for anyone who is interested: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml.

There are also numerous other resources available on the web, like this one: http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=561 and in bookstores to explain accurately the Catholic view. Christopher West's books are a good place to start.

God bless,
Heather

[34. Lucy said the following at 10:13 PM on May 2:]

34

Mandi,
If the "Roman Church" does, as you say, hold to a "diminished view" of marriage and sexual relationships, then why on earth does she view marriage as a sacrament?

[35. KathleenM12 said the following at 10:28 PM on May 2:]

35

"A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation.."

Flat declarations like this, devoid of substantion, don't make a terribly convincing case. Is there any evidence that childfree couples are less happy than those with children? I haven't seen any.

Anectdotal evidence, of course, can swing any which way. I've seen happy and fulfilled retirees of both versions -- and it seems to have little to do with having children. Negative fault-finding people are generally unhappy (complaining about their children/grandchildren, if they have them; complaining about the weather/food, if they don't); sunny, optimistic people are generally happy.

One thing we do know: people without children generally have a lot more expendable income throughout their lives and into retirement. Not a judgement or a recommendation, just a statement of economic fact.

And kudos to Holly for the observation about "selfishness". The fact is, the reason people have children is because they personally want them. Not having them because you don't want them is no more "selfish" than the alternative (and possibly less so because you aren't looking to another person to satisfy your own lifestyle desires).

[36. nikki said the following at 10:58 AM on May 3:]

36

Does the Catholic Church disallow natural planning, or rhythmic planning...whatever you want to call it? If so, how is that any different in principle than a non-abortifacient Pill? Actually, this question could be answered by anyone who approves of natural planning but not chemical/barrier methods. I want to know what makes one right and the other wrong. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am just honestly wondering if there is some inherent difference I'm not seeing here.

[37. Becky F. said the following at 11:07 AM on May 3:]

37

IUDs are objectionable in my opinion. Besides, a doctor won't prescribe it for a woman who has not had any babies before. From doing a little research IUDs can be used as emergency contraception, so they certainly could be considered abortofacients.

I think after my baby is born I'm going to use a barrier method (most likely a diaghram, my mom used one at one point and liked it, not to mention it doesn't have any hormones!).

[38. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 11:39 AM on May 3:]

38

Anna:

"Now I know not all children choose to follow in their parents footsteps and there would still be quite a variety of opinions. There would probably still be some children who manage to shift all the way to the left regardless of their upbringing. However I'm just playing the odds here and since children tend to follow closely to their parents and because there would be so many children of conservative parents that given some time there would be a whole lot more conservatives."

[39. Mandi said the following at 12:35 PM on May 3:]

39

Jeffrey Whiting,

Since you started this ;), I'd usually be inclined to respond to your answer first. (I.e., your answer to Jethro was that the Pill was wrong, "[b]ecause it is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.")

However, you'll hafta take a number because I seem to be outnumbered on the forum right now in terms of basing my objections to the teachings of the Roman Church on the supremacy of God's Word and sound explanations of it from the earliest centuries of Christianity based on Apostolic Teaching.

I also take seriously the invitations to read some of the material others persuaded by this view have tried to link me to, so I'm still trying to get through reading them before I respond in full. Not that you're sitting by the computer waiting with baited breath or anything. ;)

[40. Marci said the following at 3:15 PM on May 3:]

40

Becky F,

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't realize IUD's would count as abortificants. I will do some research on the diaphragm, though, to see if I'll be comfortable using it when I get marrried...because I, too, am not keen on gaining weight from birthcontrol, or taking a risk of other adverse effects of the hormones on my body...

If anyone knows of a good source of info about diaphragms (reliable internet site, etc) feel free to send it along...

Blessings to you all!

[41. Rachel said the following at 3:47 PM on May 3:]

41

Becky:
"Which is why the Church will never be united." Wow, pessimism! :) Not sure I'd go that far; we've got a long way to go, but if we have to be united in heaven, we'd better hold out hope for here, no?

[42. Anachronism said the following at 4:27 PM on May 3:]

42

My future bride and I agree that we will not be using any artificial means to prevent having children when we are married. If we don't want kids right away, we will have to make the sacrifice of not having sex when she is fertile.

Since it was asked, the reason the Catholics endorse natural family planning is because it is not disordered. That is, the artificial use of contraception perverts the sexual union of a man and a woman seeking to have the pleasure of the act without the possible consequences God ordained for the act. Foregoing sex when a woman is fertile is not necessarily disordered, though it can be, if used selfishly.

Also, can anyone find a church father who endorsed artificial contraception? Every statement I've seen from the early church on the matter condemned it.

[43. Irene M. said the following at 5:52 PM on May 3:]

43

Mandhi,

You make some great points, but I would like to clarify some your points on Catholic discipline/doctrine.

//This business that every act of sexual intercourse should be "open" to procreation//

Sexual intercourse should be "open to procreation" in that men and women should not *artificially* deny the pro-creative aspects of sex. Sex between infertile married couples or during non-fertile periods is not an issue because it is a barrier created by God and not by people trying to assume God's authority over creation. The point is not to have as many children as possible, but to respect God's will and to mimic Christ's love by discerning and accepting the vocation that the couple has been given. To say that Catholics do not value sex for its own sake or those who cannot have children is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

//The Roman Church also lives out this diminished view of sex in another of its innovations, celibate priesthood as the norm.//

First, celibacy is a discipline that is asked of most *Latin rite* priests, not a doctrine. It's not that sex is bad, but that disobedience to the Church authorities, who have asked that certain men to voluntarily and fully devote themselves to the Church by not having a family, is bad. Also, married men can and do become priests, but the requirements are different between the various rites (although, no rite completely bans married men from becoming priests).

//Consenual sex between a husband and wife is holy. Period.//

You are right and all Catholics would agree with you. However, the voluntary celibacy of some does not detract from the holiness of consentual marital sex. Are you by any chance Eastern or Oriental Orthodox? If so, do you believe that the Patriarchs' refusal to allow married priests to become bishops means that the Orthodox Church does not value marital sex?

Again, you make some great points and I am glad that you drew the distinction between abortificant and non-abortificant birth control, but please be more careful when speaking about another denominations beliefs and practices.

[44. Eliana said the following at 7:02 PM on May 3:]

44

Nikki,

Take a look at the resources people are mentioning. That should answer your questions about what makes contraception wrong but Natural Family Planning okay. And just to reiterate what's already been said, people are confusing the rhythm method with Natural Family Planning and saying both are ineffective. Natural Family Planning is much more effective. When the Catholic Church say that contraception is a grave sin, that does not mean you do not plan at all, or that you have as many children as possible indiscriminately.

Just to add the the good resources listed here, check the website of the Couple to Couple League:
http://www.ccli.org

[45. Eliana said the following at 7:10 PM on May 3:]

45

Mandi, you said"
"However, you'll hafta take a number because I seem to be outnumbered on the forum right now in terms of basing my objections to the teachings of the Roman Church on the supremacy of God's Word and sound explanations of it from the earliest centuries of Christianity based on Apostolic Teaching."

Well, here are some statements from Church Fathers. Do they sound like they support contraception?

Lactantius

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Hippolytus

"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

These and more quotes of church fathers can be found at Catholic.com in their library.

[46. Jacob said the following at 7:39 PM on May 3:]

46

Throughout the history of the Church, birth control has been viewed as wrong (or at least improper) up until very recently when Protestants started using it, and we somehow thing that we are the "normal" ones?

I'm Reformed, which puts me at odds with Roman Catholic teachings more than most Evangelicals, but on this matter, I truly believe Rome has upheld the truth and that most protestants have bought into the "Burger King" lie: "Have It your way."

Now, the standard response to this debate is for people to point out their special circumstances and use it to try to justify their opposition to the general rule. I acknowledge that there are some people who have serious medical problems and are unable to have children, however, these couples do not consitute the vast majority of married Christians.

Frankly, who's silly idea was it that we can separate marriage, sex and family from one another? It's a package deal and unless you're willing to deal with the responsibilities that come with all three, you're not ready for even one of them.

Again, people with special circumstances usually speak up here too, and I acknowledge their situation, but that does not excuse the vast majority of Christian couples.

Church history, Protestant and Catholic, stands against birth control and we somehow think that we are somehow superior in our insights and understanding of the situation? We think we're normal? We think we're ok?

I disagree.

[47. Phoebe said the following at 8:37 PM on May 3:]

47

Wow, it's cool to hear so many pro-openness voices on this thread!

I would like to point out in reference to a statement by Marci, who says some of her friends got pregnant while trying to use rhythm method. I'm sorry, but NFP is totally different than the rhythm method. It charts the body's temperature and physical signs to tell when fertile or not.

It is very, very accurate when correctly followed.

[48. Becky F. said the following at 9:20 PM on May 3:]

48

Of course we'll all be united in heaven! We'll be in the presense of God and will no longer be sinful, so we won't have any inclinations to go different directions with our opinions. :)

[49. Becky F. said the following at 9:36 PM on May 3:]

49

So, if I'm understanding some of these comments correctly, sex with some form of birth control is not real sex. Or at least not the "one flesh", uniting, Biblical kind... ? If people leave the possibility of procreation open they are having real, Biblical sex. The exception was made for those who are beyond their fertile years, so I suppose the exception would be made for a pregnant woman also?

Sex is sex regardless. No, it's not just the physical act of sexual intercourse, but blocking sperm from ovums during sexual intercourse doesn't make it any less sex.

Onan's sin was that he did not follow the OT ceremonial law that a man would provide an heir for his brother's widow to carry on his name (see Deuteronomy 25 for the law, and see Genesis 38 for the story of Onan, Tamar, and Judah).

[50. Dustin said the following at 11:00 PM on May 3:]

50

In response to Zeph-

While I believe the basic argument that good families are good for society, I really question the motive of "if we have more kids we can have a more conservative society". Why should we concern ourselves with outcome if the action is right? Maybe more kids would lead to more crime. That certainly is the argument made by the authors of "Freakanomics". They argue that abortion has helped reduce crime. After all, it's the poor who commit crimes; abortion is highest amongst impoverished minorities (especially the black population). Less people equals less crime.

People should have children for many reasons. The outcome of a good society is indeed a possible benefit, but let's not use it as a justification. God did not make us because he needs us. We should not make children because we need them. We should make love, and making love makes children.

[51. KathleenM12 said the following at 11:55 PM on May 3:]

51

Irene M writes: "Sexual intercourse should be "open to procreation" in that men and women should not *artificially* deny the pro-creative aspects of sex."

This seems to be akin to saying that we should not use toothpaste because it *artificially* denies the natural decaying process that God designed for the teeth.

Frankly, I fail to see how using condoms, or spermicides or IUDs or pills are any more "artificial" than using basal thermometers and mucous membrane charts to schedule abstinence practices -- all these methods are designed to avoid pregnancy, and a thermometer is certainly no less artificial than a piece of latex.

"Sex between infertile married couples or during non-fertile periods is not an issue because it is a barrier created by God and not by people trying to assume God's authority over creation."

If infertility is a barrier created by God, then so are all other afflictions. This would mean that we should refrain from treating or curing God-created diseases, nor should we treat infertility with fertility treatments, because that would be "assuming God's authority over his creation".

Somehow, the idea of blaming God for infertility or cancer or luekemia seems rather absurd; those things are biological afflictions that can be treated, not curses from God that should be endured as his "punishment".

[52. Marci said the following at 8:21 AM on May 4:]

52

Hey All!

A question on Roman Catholic teachings: is the Catholic church united in how they teach about contraception/sex? I'm not Catholic, but I was wondering if perhaps some of the disputes on doctrine are the result of certain teachings differing between indivdual churches, or perhaps different types of Catholicism (this latter comment comes because someone told me that there is a kind of continum ranging from 'conservative' Catholics to more 'liberal' Catholics, liberal being Catholics who hold some pentecostal beliefs, amongst other things...yes? No?) Thoughts here would be welcome.

For instance, I am pentecostal, and I know that within the pentecostal denomination, teachings on these matters vary widely based on who is preaching. There's the PAOC, but also the Pentecostal Holiness (and there may be others) and even between these distinct branches of pentecostalism, there is QUITE a difference...so I was wondering if some/all of these factors may be at work here...

Responses welcome!

Blessing to All!

[53. Mandi said the following at 9:22 AM on May 4:]

53

Jeffrey Whiting, Rachel, Kate, Heather, Lucy, IreneM....

...and anyone else I might have missed in there who was taking issue with my characterization of the stand on contraception, and marital sex in general, of the Church of Rome, here goes.

I’d prefer to divide my comments in response to yours in two parts, not just because I’ve got many things to do. It would make the response easier on the eyes (there were many of you and one of me), and would untangle some separate, but related, issues.

I think we agree that children are a blessing from the Lord and should be seen in that Scriptural light. I suspect we also agree that the “multiplying” parts of the Genesis blessings in 1:22 and 1:28 are not fulfilled by the “two in, two out” mantra of many population control zealots. We’ve got the plummeting birth rates in “developed” countries as proof. Steve’s original post addresses this, and the alarm of the “progressive” Philip Longman is well-placed. (Of course people make their personal choices to leave God’s Way when they grow up or continue in it, but the Bible still insists that we what we teach our children will stay with them (Prov. 22:6) and that foundations are very, very important (Matt. 7: 24-25, Luke 6: 47-49).)

We also agree that life begins at fertilization, and that human interference after fertilization is wrong. So, drugs or objects that interfere with an embryo’s ability to attach to the lining of the womb are wrong.

We also agree that God provides. His power, wisdom, abundance and love cannot be truly known or measured by us. When we reduce children strictly to how expensive they are on our pocketbook and energies without leaving any room for God’s provision of resources and wisdom, we err indeed.

We also agree, to a point, about the *consequences* of widespread availability and use of contraceptives amongst the *unmarried*.

I think the final thing I’ll list under what we agree about is that sex is only to be had between a husband and a wife.

Not much else I think we agree about. I reject what you’re saying based on Scripture, universally recognized historical Church leaders who interpreted it, and from what I learned about what your Church teaches on these issues having spent 15 years of my life going to your schools (and from Vatican sources themselves). More on that in a bit.

[54. Jacob said the following at 10:42 AM on May 4:]

54

"This seems to be akin to saying that we should not use toothpaste because it *artificially* denies the natural decaying process that God designed for the teeth."

Tooth decay is a result of living in a fallen world. Children are not.

Other objectors think that not using contraceptives implies that one should not seek medical treatment. A deeper understanding of the issue will reveal that in medical treatments, one is seeking to restore, correct or attenuate something gone wrong. Pregnancy is a natural function, not something that has gone wrong. Thus, the analogy falls apart.

Again, virtually all Chrsitians throughout the ages have believed that birth control is wrong, and we think we're "normal" for believing it's ok. Sounds awefully arrogant to me...

[55. Mandi said the following at 11:30 AM on May 4:]

55

Eliania,

I think I’ll respond to this quickly before I get to responding to the bulk of the other questions/comments to my statements because this won’t take as much time, and I’m working outside home today.

Re: quoting “Church Fathers”

Great caution here. While it’s always more instructive to examine the writings and practices describing the Early Church by those living at that time, not everyone who wrote in ancient times can, or is, universally recognized as a “Church Father”. Tertullian and Origen immediately come to mind, but there are others too. Often these leaders or theologians were right about many things but their teachings (or practices, as in the case of Origen who castrated himself) were wrong about others. The “pre-denominational” unified Church did not consider such men to be “Church Fathers” because *all* of their teachings did not square with Scripture. We must do the same. If someone writes something that goes against what God’s Word says or presumes to add to it ideas that go against Biblical teaching as a whole on a subject, we should be very careful to rely upon that writing, whether ancient or modern (a la the post about John Piper earlier this week).

I confess that I do not know whether Lactantius is considered a universally recognized “Church Father”, or just one adopted by the Church of Rome. However, the latter part of the quote you cite is the crux of my dispute with your Church’s teachings: the idea that sex is for procreation only (as Lactantius here claims), or even primarily, as other “Fathers” claim. The authority of Scripture does not support your Church’s claim. I’ll really have to get to that in my further answer to the others. (Gosh, I thought this would be “quick” to answer.)

Epiphanius of Salamis is not, in this quote, identifying whether those engaging in “genital acts” are married or not (I shudder, if he is referring to the married by such a description). He then goes on to reiterate this Roman idea that procreation is paramount (“not in order to produce offspring”). He describes these acts as lustful. Again, I submit that married and unmarried acts should be described separately. More on that later.

Hippolytus’ quote refers to “drugs of sterility” (and abortion, by expulsion of a fetus). With great respect, this does nothing to support your view about contraception, which is very different from “sterility”.

Augustine. Ah, Augustine. He’s another one to be careful about, both in reference to him as a “Church Father” (no consensus there with anyone), and most especially in what he says about marriage, sex, and procreation because what he says not only cannot be found in Scripture, it opposes what God’s Word says about those topics. Unfortunately, his teachings are what the Church of Rome has mainly based its own teachings on about these subjects. (That is sad because as people trying to spread the Gospel, we shouldn’t be appealing to the writings of people whose ideas go against what the Scriptures teach to do so.) But much more on that later.

I notice that you have not mentioned two ancient Christian elders and writers whose writings about these subjects are considered classical amongst Christians across lands and cultures: John Chrysostom and Athanasius. (Please, before you use the oft-quoted passage of Chrysostom about abortion, be mindful that he addresses “sterility” and abortion, not “contraception”. In fact, if you read “On Marriage and Family Life” in which he thoroughly explains the Apostle Paul’s writings about marriage, it is clear that the Bible says that companionship/love leading to the holiness of the couple is the primary purpose of marriage, with procreation being a natural and secondary outcome of that.)

I thought this would be “quick” to answer…really gotta get back to work now (I didn’t eat my lunch on my lunch and I’m hungry!).

[56. EmmaLee said the following at 11:36 AM on May 4:]

56

Becky F.
"Sex is sex regardless. No, it's not just the physical act of sexual intercourse, but blocking sperm from ovums during sexual intercourse doesn't make it any less sex."

KathleenM12
"Frankly, I fail to see how using condoms, or spermicides or IUDs or pills are any more "artificial" than using basal thermometers and mucous membrane charts to schedule abstinence practices -- all these methods are designed to avoid pregnancy, and a thermometer is certainly no less artificial than a piece of latex."

Speaking from experience, there is a huge difference between having sex with condoms, the pill, and without contraception. My husband and I have been together in all 3 manners and there is an infinite difference when nothing is keeping your bodies apart. Condoms physically separate the man and the woman. The only time we used a condom I found myself crying because the act felt so distant and cold compared to how God intended it to be. The first time we came together after I stopped using the pill there was an incredible emotional connection that I had never felt until then, that I continue to feel now.
I realize some people may have had different experiences, but to those speaking only from theory and not from experience, please realize that the physical aspect of sex is only side of it. Placing barriers between yourself and your spouse will alter the emotional and spiritual aspects of the act.

[57. Marci said the following at 12:37 PM on May 4:]

57

EmmaLee,

Thanks for being brave and sharing your experiences. I honestly never considered that using the pill or any other form of contraception could cause such an emotional difference (I never thought I would really affect the experience at all), so it's safe to say you have given me *much* food for thought in regards to what I'll do when I marry.

Blessings to you!

[58. knit_tgz said the following at 1:00 PM on May 4:]

58

Liz: the "rhythm method" is outdated. Recently (in January) a paper from a German medical team was published in a ginecology scientific journal on a study on the efficiency of the sympto-thermal method (one of the modern methods of NFP). The couples who followed the rules carefully to avoid pregnancy had pregnancy rates of less than 1% (similar to the pill); but better, the couples who knowingly had sex on fertile time sometimes still had a low pregnancy rate (around 7%, if I recall). You can find the abstract (free) here: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dem003v1
and if you are at a University maybe you can see the whole paper.

[59. Marci said the following at 2:06 PM on May 4:]

59

OOPS!

Phoebe, you raise a good point about the differences between Natural Family Planning and the rythum method (which I didn't know about). I appologize: had I read DrLiz's comments more carefully, I would have noticed that she clearly made a distinction between the two, which in my too hasty reading, I overlooked.

I appologize!

However, this was a great insight, because after looking at the websites provided and getting information on Natural Family Planning, I'm wondering why on earth this is the first time I'm hearing of it! I'm still a little worried about it's effectiveness (a carryover from my fears about the rythum method, I think, which is different), but it sounds like it would resolve my concerns about other forms of contreception...

I'm going to try and find some Christian resources in Toronto that will help me learn more about how it all works; if it's really as effective as claimed (I'm skeptical about the whole 'Ecco breastfeeding thing, to be honest, but the part about a womans body temperature seems reasonable), it would be an answer to prayer.

So thanks for all the info!

Blessings to you all!

[60. Blair said the following at 3:27 PM on May 4:]

60

I am still forming my beliefs on birth control. I know I am against any form of birth control that could abort a fertilized egg (or not allow it to implant). One of the promblems I have with some supporters of birth control is that they see children as a consequence not as a blessing.

[61. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:06 AM on May 5:]

61

Wow, we got into a full-blown discussion on birth control (interesting it's called "birth" control when perhaps more accurately it should be called "pregnancy" control as abortion would then be considered "birth" control).

A few things:

- To answer Marci's question, the Roman Catholic church is clearly against any type of "physical" birth control. By that I mean the Pill, Condems, IEDs, etc. Anything more than Natural Family Planning (NFP), rhythm method, or basically anything in which you put something on or into your body is sin.

- Some Christians, even non-Catholics are opposed to the Pill for various reasons.

- The NFP is pretty reliable IF FOLLOWED CORRECTLY. This of course is the big 'if'. One instance of having sex during the wrong time could make it completely ineffective. And it does require some effort to determine a woman's cycle (temperature and mucus production in the vaginal area [sorry if that was too much info]).

- I would be very careful before giving arguments for/against contraception. For example, the Catholic argument of "you might be stopping the production of a new life by using a condem" is inconsistent. You MIGHT be doing a lot of wrong things with certain actions (such as entering a just war. You might kill innocent civilians. Does that mean the war itself shouldn't be engaged?). People against the Pill have a more legitimate argument saying that sometimes an egg is destroyed after fertilization thus you are in a way "killing" a new life.

- Finally in regards to whether intentionally not having children in marriage or intentionally having fewer is "sin" again I'll state I'm wary of putting the 'S' label on something that isn't explicit in the Bible. But I do agree that it is very sad that so many try to separate marriage from parenthood. Make no mistake. Raising children is hard work and there are MANY sacrifices to be made. But I know a lot more parents who said "it was definitely worth it" than those who say "I wish I never had children".

Ok, I'm still single and yet I know probably a lot more than I should about birth control and reproductive medicine. Something's amiss here.

[62. Eliana said the following at 3:09 PM on May 5:]

62

Well, Becky, thanks for responding.

As concerns Church fathers, well, if you won't accept certain Church fathers, then what can I say? Catholics see the Church as a continuum, from the earliest apsotles to know, and we can trace back over the centuries, the faith being handed on from one bishop to the next. The Church has developed her doctrine on the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. Before, the procretive aspect was the main one emphasized, whereas now both the unitive and procreative aspects as emphasized.

Concerning certain Church fathers, the Church does not say that every word every one said is true. What she has done is as a body, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has discerned which teachings are true and that the faithful should follow. And for 1900 years, contraception was considered to be a sin by all Christians, until Protestants broke away from that.

You say that when Hippolytus condems drugs of sterility, he is not condemning contraceptives. But what are contraceptives but drugs taken with the purpose to temporarily sterilize? If he's not referring to contraceptives, what is he referring to?

Re: the quote of Chrysostom, here's what he says:
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

What do you say he means if not contraceptives? "Something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation."
Only contraceptives prevent formation.

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Again, what else prevents the beginning of life? Abortion kills a life already begun. Contraceptives prevent life from beginning.

But can you show me any Church fathers who advocated or permitted contraception? Where does the Bible say contraception is okay?

[63. Eliana said the following at 3:15 PM on May 5:]

63

Something very interesting which seems like it could be a prediction of contraception is Luke 23:29. But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 “For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed."

Jesus doesn't sound happy about the infertile future, does He?

Also, Mandi, you say that contraception is Biblical. Why then does the whole Bible praise the fruitfulness of a woman so many times?

[64. Eliana said the following at 3:42 PM on May 5:]

64

I just remembered that there are two crucial points that need to be mentioned. Some people ask what's the difference between NFP and contraception, if you're using both to not conceive. One important difference is that NFP is not supposed to be used with a contraceptive attitude, or it can also become sinful. So if a couple used NFP their whole marraige to avoid conception, and did not have a serious reason to do so, that would also be wrong. So just because you use NFP, doesn't mean you are supposed to be closed off to all life.

Someone was asking about whether there are different Catholic teachings. No, there are not. The Catholic Church has the magisterium which formulates doctrines. You can learn the official teachings of the Church by picking up a copy of the Catechism. Many Catholics nowadays disobey the teachings of the church or ignore them--these are the so-called liberal Catholics. But they do not have teaching authority. There are sometimes theologians or priests who might disobey and preach against the Church's teachings. But they are not authorized to define new doctrines, and so when they preach against the official teachings of the bishops in communion with the pope, they are preaching heresy.

So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism.

[65. Mandi said the following at 7:43 PM on May 5:]

65

Jeffrey Whiting, Rachel, Kate, Heather, Lucy, IreneM, Elania, (and anyone else I missed who took issue with my Biblical defence of the idea that not every act of sexual intercourse between the husband and wife must be "open" to procreation)....you might need a cup of coffee or something... :)

You've taken issue with my statement that the logical conclusion of your Church's teachings on openness in sex is that knowingly making love during periods of infertility is sinful.

I won't bother using what I was taught in your schools, by curriculum approved by your bishops, as proof.

I'll use your own Vatican's documents, and some of the ones you yourselves have linked me to.

This is what your Catechism says about "lust":

"2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."

What does the Bible say about lust?

Well, it's not talking about it in the context of marriage. Rather, the word "lust" is grouped with sexual immorality in general (e.g., 1 Thess 4: 3-5), and harlotry (Prov. 6:24-26, Jer. 13: 26-27, Ez. 23:5), fornication and adultery (Matt 5:28), and homosexuality and sodomy (Rom 1: 27) specifically. Other perverted forms of sexuality, bestiality, and incest, are clearly and similarly condemned and punished by God (Ex. 22:19, Lev. 20: 11, 12, 14-16 as but a few examples). Even greed for money is lumped in with "lust" (1 Tim. 6: 8-10). But not sex between a husband and wife.

When the Bible speaks of "sexual immorality", it speaks at great length, in great detail. It does not list "sexual pleasure… when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" in the context of marriage as immoral, or "morally disordered" to use the Vatican's words.

In fact, in 1 Cor. 6, the Apostle Paul talks of "flee[ing] sexual immorality", and he defines it specifically as sex outside of marriage.

That is why the Early Church insisted that marriage be honoured as a "mystery", or "sacrament", and the Church of Rome has thankfully mostly kept that practice alive (to answer your question, Lucy.

Some of the resources you led me to as showing, as Heather put it, "very well-reasoned explanation of the Catholic teaching on the unitive and procreative nature of sex" show the crux of the matter.

Your Church's teachings are based on the writings of Augustine (and following in his path, Thomas Aquinas), not the Word of God or the Apostolic Tradition which faithfully read it (like John Chrysostom or Athanasius), not read into it things that aren't there or in opposition to it.

Eliana quoted one of the passages by Augustine used by the Roman Church as a basis for this teaching. I'll paste it here for ease of reference:

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

This passage is breathtaking in its audacity to defy and contradict God's Word in describing marriage and lust. It truly makes me want to cry to see someone speak of the Scriptures thus.

Heb. 13:4 is absolutely CLEAR about the purity and holiness of the sexual relationship between a husband and his wife: " Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Notice the Bible CLEARLY distinguishes between sex between married and unmarried folk: one is honourable and undefiled, the other will bring down the judgment of God.

Consider too, that this passage clearly shows that judgment will come upon fornicators and adulterers whose sexual acts are nonetheless "open" to procreation, because the honour and defilement come from the marital status, or lack thereof, of the participants – not the "openness" to procreation.

If it were as you say, the Apostle, not one to mince his words, would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that "openness" to procreation in every act of marital intercourse was necessary for honour and undefilement. But He did not.

In direction violation of the spirit and letter of God's Word, Augustine uses words like "lust", "lustful cruelty", "cruel lust", "shame", "not married", "seduction", "harlot of her husband", and "adulterer with his own wife" when describing a husband and wife making love.

How DARE he use such language –- when God's Word has very different things to say about this? How dare he?!?

Who IS he to attribute the word "lust" and to acts that the Scriptures have only ever used in reference to harlotry, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality, and incest?

Who IS he to call that is good and honourable, evil? God's Word has this to say about those who twist His precepts that way: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!" (Is. 5: 20-21)

I repeat: how dare he?

And yet, your Church bases its teachings on these issues on his writing.

Honestly, I'm so mad write now, writing this, I need to leave it for a while and finish my defence of the Biblical teaching of the holiness of consensual sex between a husband and wife, at whatever time of the month and in whatever season of life. You've made many unbiblical assumptions about the "nature" of sex and marriage, but I have - have to -- walk away from this now after poring over those scandalous passages about lust from the Catechism and Augstine.

God bless you. (Are you on your second cup of coffee yet? Sorry for the length. So many of you, one of me. Quite the topic.)

[66. Phoebe said the following at 9:31 PM on May 5:]

66

Bravo, Marci! I'm glad you're really thinking through this.

Here are several quotes from a book by John Kippley, "Sex and the Marriage Covenant, a Basis for Morality". It is published by the Couple to Couple League, which is the Catholic family organization dedicated to promoting Natural Family Planning.

"What makes a couple married?
A man and woman marry when they publicly promise to love each other without reservation as long as they both live. The term "love" here has nothing to do with great emotional feelings; it means caring love and fidelity even under the most trying circumstances, for better and for worse. In essence, the man and the woman make a total unreserved gift of self to each other for life, and that's what makes them husband and wife. To put it in biblical terms, they willingly enter God's covenant of marriage by making a permanent gift of self to each other."

"The purpose and purposes of marriage: The overriding purpose of marriage is the mutual holiness of husband and wife....Within the context of growth in holiness, the Second Vatican Council taught about two other purposes of marriage--
1)the development of their married love and
2) the procreation and education of children."

"What is the role of sex within marriage?
.. to foster the purposes of marriage itself-- the development of the marriage bond and the procreation and education of children. It is to be a symbol of the mutual commitment of the spouses, a renewal of their marriage covenant, at least implicity."

[note, 'pleasure' is not the Purpose of sex, though it certainly is a great part of the joy of the union. --according to what I've learned from my mother.]

"How is contraceptive behavior to be evaluated in terms of the marriage covenant?
In making the commitment of marriage, the couple give themselves to each other for better and for worse without reservation. Sexual intercourse becomes the symbol of that inital unreserved gift of self to the other, a gift that must be carried out in the day to day living of their marriage. However, the essence of contraceptive behavior is that it is sex with serious reservation [sentence emphasized in text]. The symbol of total self-giving is contradicted by contraception, and, de facto, there is lacking the unreserved gift of self."

EmmaLee's testimony, and that of my mother, state that there IS a difference between sex w/ contraception and sex without. I personally believe that this is not a black-and-white issue, but I do belive that there is good and bad, right and wrong involved. I hope, by God's grace to marry a man who shares my conviction. If ever I enter a 'courting' relationship, this issue will be one of the very top things I'll have to discuss. After being exposed to the Catholic teachings about joyous mutual self-giving, I can't imagine sex with any contraception. It totally contradicts the holy idea I have of sex.

One last thought-- if marriage, and sex, is a divine analogy given to us by God of our relationship with Christ, what symbol does sex have in that analogy? Joyous, unreserved, life-giving, mutual self-giving love!!! He gave his life and love, we return with ours. We give him ALL of our life and love, or else it is not true worship!

[67. Phoebe said the following at 9:47 PM on May 5:]

67

Marci, you asked if Catholic teaching is united on this. The answer is that the Vatican is consistent, but that Catholics, even some priests, do not obey Vatican teaching on this. Some Catholics-in-name even support abortion! (i.e. John Kerry)

btw, I am not Catholic -- and you have to be discerning about some of the teachings. I attend an Evangelical Free church, where most of the married people no doubt do practice contraception.
:(
Nevertheless, there are many loving parents in our congregation and very good family support. I'm blessed.

As for the sin of Onan-- what was given as law first? It may have been a cultural practice, but in Judah's time God had not yet made as law the principle that a man should produce offspring for his dead brother. Moses came long after Judah, Tamar, and Onan.

Kippely, in the book I mentioned above, says that "a close examination of the text shows that God condemned Onan for the specific action he performed, not for his anti-Levirate intentions. He notes that the translation 'he spilled his seed on the ground' fails to do justice to the Hebrew expression. The Hebrew verb /shichet/ never means to spill or waste. Rather it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related towards the ground, not against his brother. '...His perversion or corruption consists in his action itself, not precisely in the result and goal of his act. [quoting Biblical scholar Manuel Miguens]' "

[68. Hillary said the following at 12:44 AM on May 6:]

68

Perhaps in our focus on the hermeneutics of birth control we are missing the larger picture necessary to properly construct a theology of family. I am so glad that we are concerned about family sizes and bringing children into the world so that the body of Christ may flourish. Nonetheless, I am disturbed by the ways in which we have closed our definition of family. While this is not abnormal to our westernized mindset, it is unsettling that we as Christians, who have ourselves been adopted into God's family, would choose to focus this conversation almost exclusively on the children who can come directly from our wombs and arrive into a safe nuclear family.

Our religion is to care for the destitute. What statement could be made regarding life (and here I speak after Richard B. Hays) if 10,000 Christians brought forth a piece of legislation stating that they would adopt any child of any age, race, sex, disability, hardship rather than 10,000 signing a petition to end the over-the-counter sale of morning-after pills? What if we were to open our homes to children and not just our wombs? Surely our definition of family must be large enough to encompass our neighbor's fertility patterns and to bear the burdens of those facing the choice of abortion.

The conversation is above is often helpful, but if we fail to open this discussion to include a larger definition and understanding of family and fertility, I think we will be doing this talk a disservice.

[69. Ted Slater said the following at 9:16 AM on May 6:]

69

Eliana wrote, "... NFP is not supposed to be used with a contraceptive attitude, or it can also become sinful...."

Um. Is anyone else confused by this? It seems to me that the "end" of NFP is to prevent the conception of a child. NFP by its very nature goes against the spirit of 1 Cor. 7:1-5, and for the purpose of preventing pregnancy from taking place.

Under your conditions, then, I don't know how NFP can be anything but "sinful."

[70. Heather said the following at 3:19 PM on May 6:]

70

I'll respond to your question, Ted, and in part to Mandi. This is going to be a little long, so the shortest answer is that NFP is about understanding a woman's cycle. It can be used to achieve pregnancy quickly, not just to avoid it.

Primarily, the heart of Catholic teaching on having children and the spacing of births is a recognition that children are a blessing and should be welcomed as the fruit of marital love. Thus, married couples should always be willing to receive new life through the marital act, although we know that at some times the act will be naturally less fertile than at other times.

If a couple knows that they have serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy at this time, they should abstain. As others have said, everyone is not expected to have as many children as physically possible. We are, as Christians, called to be generous and sacrificial, and to put our faith in God (not worldly wisdom) regarding the size of our families. Only the individual couple can determine what may be grave reasons to avoid pregnancy, but by cooperating with God's design for our bodies, the presumption is always towards life!

The way NFP can be sinful has to do with the attitude of the heart--if a woman decides to avoid another pregnancy because she just got her figure back, or a couple wants to avoid the expense of another child to afford more material things--then they may be acting in a right way but with a wrong motive. This is one of the challenging things, in a good way, about avoiding contraceptives--the couple naturally desires to come together, and so they must revisit the question of whether God is calling them to have another child on a monthly basis! As many of Boundless's writers have said, it is easy to get caught up in a contraceptive lifestyle, and before you know it, the mosyt fertile years of your marriage may be gone.

So yes, Ted, it could be possible to practice NFP in a way that is contrary to that passage in Corinthians. Ideally, all married couples should simply come together in love and be open to any new life God brings. I know many couples whose learn NFP because they have been unable to achieve pregnancy, and I think it is great to learn more about the complex design of a woman's body. In some ways, NFP is a concession to the fact that we live in a fallen world--sometimes there is sickness, poor health, or other reasons that we cannot be as open to new life as we'd like to be. However, by practicing NFP, a couple is not changing the nature of their union, but only working within their bodies' God-given design. If they must abstain, it is a time to pray and perhaps ask for God's help so that they can be ready to receive more children.

As for Mandi, I'm sorry and surprised at your anger over what you've read. Augustine certainly uses the strongest language against those who have sterile sex, but I think you are reading these passages too uncharitably. The church fathers and Catholic teaching do not condemn sexual love between a husband and wife, and clearly the Bible does not, either. Ideally, there should be no unholy lust between a husband and wife, and their marital embrace should be the result of their love for each other, fertility and all.

Because of sin, we humans are often tempted to use each other as objects, either seeking sexual pleasure without welcoming the children that might be conceived, or in some cases, seeing the other person only as a means to having a child. In fact, to make love to one's wife only because you want a child, and not as an act of love towards her, is just as wrong as refusing to have children.

And Mandi, regarding the possibility of lust between a husband and wife, the question is whether they are truly coming together in love, or are simply viewing each other's bodies as objects for their own pleasure? This is maybe more clear in a case where a husband demands sex from a wife who is ill or tired. In that case, he is not honoring her as a person, but is only seeing her body as a means to meet his own need. Surely you agree that to demand sex without consideration for your spouse's health or other conditions is wrong? That is where lust can overriding love in a marriage. Even our laws now recognize this by holding that it is possible for rape to occur within a marriage, although that would be the extreme case. (and I'm not trying to imply that all men are predators towards their wives, so please don't take it that way!) Essentially, we humans have a tendency to use each other selfishly, in ways sexual or not, and just as one can view another lustfully as a sex object outside of marriage, the same can happen within marriage. Hopefully, it is much rarer in marriage, since the couple is continually practicing mutual love and respect for each other...

Sorry this is so long, and I hope it helps answer folks' questions!

[71. Leah said the following at 2:22 AM on May 7:]

71

Jeffrey- there is nothign wrong with birth control as long as we are responsible about it. Obviously, there are those who use it all the time and intend never to have children. That, arguably, could be called "wrong".

But honestly, I would say it's actually irresponsible not to use BC in certain situations. What about a couple who has twin babies and a toddler and really doesn't have the time, energy and resources for another baby at this point in time? Do they just not have sex until they can afford another child? Of course not! That would bring on ramifications for the couple's relationship. Birth control, in that context, is not being used to stop them from having a family- it is simply stopping them from procreating at that particular point in time. I see nothing unbiblical about that.

I don't see anythign in the bible that implies every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. Procreation is not the ONLY purpose of sex. Sex plays a huge role in a relationship, as I'm sure most married men will attest to. (And no, I'm not making jabs at the whole male preoccupation with sex :P I jsut know that it is true that sex plays a bigger role for guys than for women). I therefore think it would be wrong to deprive either partner of sex simply because you cannot afford to get pregnant.

[72. Phoebe said the following at 9:09 AM on May 7:]

72

Leah, please se Heather's comment above. After having twins would be a good time to follow NFP for a couple years. Heavy nursing would also naturally delay ovulation and the return of the menstrual cycle -- this is not true for all women, but it is true for many. (nursing has to be a constant for this to work)

Birth control is not necessary in a situation like this. By using NFP, the couple gives the woman's body a time to rest, while yet honoring the sacredness of sex and procreation.

Quote from Heather:
"This is one of the challenging things, in a good way, about avoiding contraceptives--the couple naturally desires to come together, and so they must, [on a monthly basis], revisit the question of whether God is calling them to have another child!"

Great point!

[73. xeres said the following at 9:29 AM on May 7:]

73

you go, hillary!! :)

[74. Mandi said the following at 10:36 AM on May 7:]

74

Heather,

I take serious issue with your Church's underlying assumptions that consensual sex between a husband and wife can be lustful simply because it is non-procreative, or not "open" to procreation.

Simply put, you're not relying on the Bible for such an assumption, but on the writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquanis. The link you sent me makes that very clear.

When you look at Genesis, you see that God made all the animals before He made Adam, some of them asexual, others not. All of them He called good. He then looked upon Adam's *loneliness* and said that "it is NOT GOOD for man to be ALONE". He then took great care in fashioning a companion, a helpmate for Adam. He doesn't even mention procreation in Genesis 2.

The fact is the Bible condemns sexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage, not within. I think my previous post cited many examples of that.

The fact is, your Church is operating on the assumption that because sex *can* result in procreation, that that is its primary purpose. Genesis shows that that's not true. In fact, the way God created us ("nature")shows that that's not true either. There are simply far more periods of infertility in a woman's life, than fertility: pregnancy, continuous nursing, old age, and...like 25 days out of every month in her child-bearing years. Surely God could not have designed something "primarily" for a purpose that cannot always be fulfilled, by His own design. Marital union and the pleasure of such union, can always be enjoyed (barring the spouse that cares little about the headache of the other and insists upon relations, as you point out).

The fact is the Bible positively affirms the holiness of sex between husband and wife -- and makes it clear that it's "honorable" and "undefiled", unlike fornication and adultery (which can be "open" to procreation).
______________________________________
That seems to be lost in your teachings, though. The Anscombe article you linked me to as showing in a well-reasoned manner the true teaching of your Church shows this clearly. Consider these examples of non-biblical innovation, to put it charitably:

"“But if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union. If the expression of love between the partners is the point, then it shouldn't be so narrowly confined.”

Um, because God said so. *Every* instance of "lust" in the Bible relates to sex between unmarried men and women, as my post on Saturday showed.

-------------------------------------
"On the other hand it is a familiar point that there is some grimness in Augustine's view of sex. He regards it as more corrupted by the fall than our other faculties. Intercourse for the sake of getting children is good but the need for sexual intercourse otherwise, he thought, is an infirmity. However, "husband and wife" (I quote) "owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children - which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality - but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another's weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse."

Who is he to start making things up along the way like this about the primary purpose of sex, and the holiness of sex between spouses?? This goes against what the Bible says about each of these. Period. His writing shouldn't be given any weight on these topics for that reason.

What's worse is that in the next paragraph she describes such a view as "holding up an ideal". Nonsense. Something that contradicts the Bible's teachings -- and the conclusions we can infer from God's own creation -- cannot be "ideal". They're just wrong. These things are in fact what contradict "nature", not the clear Biblical passages that state the contrary.
-------------------------------------

On seeking sex with a spouse for pleasure -- something that God created -- your expert, quoting Augustine, says there's "at least venial sin" there.

Something that *GOD* created for husbands and wives to enjoy as a foretaste of unity with Him in Heaven, is a bit sinful, but is something "weak" people suffer the desire for?!? Again, how do you dare call that which is good, evil...even a little bit?!?
--------------------------------------

"St Thomas follows St Augustine and all other traditional teachers in holding that intercourse sought out of lust, only for the sake of pleasure, is sin, though it is venial if the intemperance isn't great, and in type this is the least of the sins against chastity."

Sorry, but that's just accurate, at many levels.

Biblically, that's not how "lust" is defined.

"[A]ll other traditional fathers"...this is flat-out wrong because the two ancient authorities on explaining the Pauline epistles about marriage and sex, Athanasius and John Chrysostom, use the Bible as their authority for teachings, and they come to opposite conclusions.

In fact, John Chrysostom wrote an entire BOOK ("On Marriage and Family Life") about the subject in which he *clearly* explains from the Bible how marriage is for the *holiness* of the couple, and that marriage is *primarily* for the love and companionship that mirror God's love to us, and only secondarily for procreation. He is crystal-clear about that. (That's why, Eliania, your quote from John Chrysostom cannot hold the meaning you wish it to hold, outside of surgical abortion and permanent sterility.) He defines "chastity" as the Bible does -- lack of fornication and adultery, not as Augustine or Thomas Aquinas do. He specifically warns against having too many periods of abstinence (which would happen if we were to always be "open" to procreation, given all the periods of infertility in our lives).

John Chrysostom stands apart from the people your Church relies on for ancient wisdom about how the Early Church lived out a life in Christ and followed God's Word because he doesn't add or subtract from the Bible, as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas do.
--------------------------------------

As final proof that these men whose words your Church relies upon for its teachings, have unbiblical ideas, consider this passage from the article you linked me to:

"His second contribution was his definition of the "sin against nature". This phrase relates to deviant acts, such as sodomy and bestiality. He defined this type of sin as a sexual act of such a kind as to be intrinsically unfit for generation. This definition has been colossally important. It was, indeed, perfectly in line with St. Augustine's reference to copulating in a "base" way so as not to procreate.."

Unbelievable audacity. Calling what God has made and rendered "honourable" and "undefiled" as akin to *bestiality* and *sodomy*.

Truly breathtaking in its defiance of Scripture on what is -- and is not -- "sexual immorality".

Just stunning in its audacity.

But then, this is just one example of many of how the Roman Church has defied or ignored Scripture and the universally recgonized Early Church Fathers who upheld it. But that's a story for another day.

[75. Phoebe said the following at 11:11 AM on May 7:]

75

Mandi, I certainly agree that Augustine goes beyond the Bible. However, you seem to be saying that seeking sex within marriage but only for pleasure is lawful. I think that you may not be getting the point. Yes, a married couple can anticipate and enjoy the pleasure of sex, but it should not be by any means the primary 'reason' they have sex. Their intent in having sex should be an expression of love and self-giving. (please see the Kippeley quotes above) They don't 'just' want to have pleasure; they want to build each other and their marriage up.

"St Thomas follows St Augustine and all other traditional teachers in holding that intercourse sought out of lust, only for the sake of pleasure, is sin, though it is venial if the intemperance isn't great, and in type this is the least of the sins against chastity."

Only for the sake of pleasure ---
only for the sake of a sexual high ---................

not for the sake of rejoicing together in each other's bodies, but for the sake of giving one's own body gratification..............
I'm sure you would agree this kind of sex would be wrong.

Remember, not everything sexual is lawful between a man and a wife! Certain deviant sexual practices dishonor God's design for our bodies.

Please Mandi, try to understand why we believe non-contraception is a BEAUTIFUL way of life.

Love in Christ.

[76. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:12 PM on May 7:]

76

Regarding Augustine (et al),

There is nothing even hinting in the Bible that married couples who cannot produce children should stop having sex. This would include those who have had surgery (e.g. removing parts due to cancer), those who are past menopause, etc.

Unfortunately, some (noting that I still believe it's a small minority) past and current Roman Catholic leaders believe that sex without any possibility or intention for children is sin. There was even one bishop (name escapes me) who said that it is "impossible" to separate sexual pleasure from sin regardless of circumstance. So although it may be that Augustine and others did not intend the words to be overcritical of marital sex, it does seem that way.

Lust in my opinion is simply something good (sexual pleasure) which has been perverted. In the eloquent words of C.S. Lewis from The Screwtape Letters:

"Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's (God's) ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return—that is what really gladdens our Father's heart. And the troughs are the time for beginning the process."

Is it possible to have "lust" in a marriage relationship then? Yes, if for example, you are bent on just getting what you want without any consideration at all for what your spouse may want I believe that is wrong.

Again, I am hesitent to label any form of birth control as sin as well as giving quotas for the number of children a couple ought to have.

[77. Erica said the following at 1:31 PM on May 7:]

77

In the article it mentioned that Conservative Christians will be able to pass their family values to their children who will in turn have large families. It might not happen that way, as children has a mind of their own and makes their own decision. Some will accept their parents’ teachings and others will not. Hugh Hefner the founder of Playboy Magazine grew up in Midwestern Methodist family. So parents can grew up the children to love and worship God and follow his principles and pray that when they come of age they will continue in the Christian faith.

Having a lot of children may not encourage your children to do the same. If the child see his mother giving birth every year and is unable to care for herself or her children, it might not encourage the child follow her example. Also, if the mother is very sick during her pregnancy, her children will not feel positive about pregnancy. Contraceptives enable such a woman to have sex without fear of becoming pregnancy. Some women have Kidney Problem, High Blood Pressure Diabetics and need Bed Rest for months when pregnant. Women who have C- Section are not encouraged to have more than two children. The Surgical Cut is opened with each succeeding pregnancy. In the Czech Republic a woman is sterilized after two C-Sections. When my Sister-in-Law is pregnant she has to spend the whole day in bed and is unable to care for family. She cannot eat food and often spent time in hospital getting IV Fluid for food. These women cannot have large family and have to guard against frequent pregnancies.

Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation and Birth Control Pill mentioned one of things that motivate her was that her mother has 18 children of which 11 survived infancy. Her mother Anne Purcell Higgins a devoted Roman Catholic died after giving birth to her 11th child from TB and Cervical Cancer. Also, she mentioned that the women in her neighbourhood has a lot of children. A fact she did not like.

Mandi thank you provide us with reasons why Catholics does not use Birth Control. I disagreed with the Catholic teaching on Sex. I believe if the Fathers were not celibacy they would not be tempted to participate in those sexual abuse that rock the church. I never heard such scandal rock any Protestant denomination. The Breast Feeding don’t work with every woman. Once your period return you have to use another BC apart from Breastfeeding. Even if you see your period only once. I know a girl whose period returned two months after the birth of her child. She got pregnant twice in year because she heard you cannot get pregnant when nursing.

[78. André said the following at 3:01 PM on May 7:]

78

"So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism."

... and I always thought that the way to know the truth was to read the Bible and to listen to what God has to say...

I'm glad I must listen only to what God says about sex, through His word. I'd mostly be doomed if I'd guide my actions concerning sex by comments people write on Boundless' blog.

[79. Eliana said the following at 3:21 PM on May 7:]

79

Mandi,

You said:
Something that *GOD* created for husbands and wives to enjoy as a foretaste of unity with Him in Heaven, is a bit sinful, but is something "weak" people suffer the desire for?!? Again, how do you dare call that which is good, evil...even a little bit?!?

But contraceptive sex contradicts that unity with God which sex is meant to symbolize. As someone else mentioned, union with God should involve total self-giving, with nothing held back. But contraceptive sex deliberately holds back a crucial part of self, the life-giving aspect.

You mention how much of married life involves periods of infertility due to pregnancy, nursing, monthly cycle, an menopause. But that actually reinforces the point we are trying to make. When you consider all that, the window of fertility in a marriage is much smaller than it would seem at first. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that God wants us to put those fertile years at his service. He did not design us so that we would always be able to have babies. He has designed us so married couples can come together many times without even having to consider whether they will become pregnant, since much of a woman's life, she could be infertile.

Let's consider for a moment, a woman's life fertility timetable. She spends the first twelve years of her life infertile. Next, she is fertile, but if she is living chastely, she will not even to have to worry about fertility vs. infertility until she is married. Let's say she get's married at 25, the average age of marriage for a woman today. She will then have approximately 27 years of fertility left, unless she is already infertile. During those 27 years, she is infertile for approximately 20 days out of every 28 day cycle. That means that for approximately 3/4 of every cycle she is infertile.

So for approximately 20 years out of the 25 years of marriage, the woman will be infertile. Now, let's add in the three pregnancies at 9 months each, equaling 27 months, or over two years. Adding that to the appoximately 20 years of infertility, we have 22 years of married infertility before menopause.

Now let's add in infertility from nusring. As readers mentioned, some women's fertility returns much sooner than others. It partly depends on the individual woman, and partly on her method of nursing, frequency, etc. The Couple to Couple Leauge website says on average a woman might experience at least six months of infertility. So three times six month of infertility equals 1.5 years. Let's add that to the equation, and we get 23.5 years. So out of the 27 years of married life before menopause, the woman is infertile for 23.5 out of those year.

Let's say that she and her husband have a 50 year marriage, until she is age 75, and then one of the spouses dies. That means 23 years of infertility between menopause at age 52 until she is 75. So out of the 50 year marriage, we end up with 46.5 years of infertility. Hmmm, looks like God made it so we can naturally enjoy sexual relations many times without even having to think about getting pregnant. Fertility is a short window of time, and out of all the years of marriage, does that really entail a high percentage of abstinence?

[80. Eliana said the following at 3:39 PM on May 7:]

80

Mandi,

Concerning Augustine and other early Church fathers: As I mentioned before, there has been a development of doctrine. Many of the early fathers focused on the procreative aspects of sex in marriage, and not the unitive. Considering the fact that the Roman empire was not exactly known for sexual morality or wecoming children (think infanticide), they would have wanted the Christians to stand apart from the lustful practices of the Roman empire.

Also consider how in my previous response how much a woman's life she is actually infertile. Consider moreover lower life expectancy and high infant mortality rates. In that context, wouldn't it at least make some sense to encourage a couple to only come together for the purposes of conceiving, since life was brief, and many of their children would die after being born?

Moreover, as I said, there had been a development of doctrine, and now the unitive aspects of sex have been emphasized as well as the procreative. So the Church's teachings were influenced in part by fathers such as Augustine, but are not wholly dependent on his writings.

You mention Chrysostom as recommending that couples not remain abstinent for long periods of time. Well, he never recommended contraception, so basically he is encouraging couples to come together often, even with the possibility of being fertile. He is not saying to have as much contraceptive sex as you want. Also, considering how much of her married life a woman is infertile, a couple can still come together very often and not get pregnant.

You mention Genesis and how God created woman for man so he should not be alone. How about the Genesis command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth? When I drive through the US, there's still an awful lot of space. We haven't filled the earth yet!

Also, you say the Bible mentions how the Bible only condemns lust and sexual sins outside of marriage. But couples in Biblical days wanted as many children as possible. They wouldn't have been contracepting. The one man who did so, Onan, was killed, and both Catholic and Protestant theologians have said that it was for contracepting that he was killed.

Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

[81. Leah said the following at 6:36 PM on May 7:]

81

I think those who say NFP is ok but contraception isn't are being hypocritical.

You don't like contraception because it means sex which is not open to conception- but so does NFP!!

Not to mention, who wants to keep breastfeeding for 2 years just to avoid getting pregnant? How is that any better than using contraception?

[82. khalil said the following at 9:42 PM on May 7:]

82

I am kinda surprised that i haven't seen any comments about physical/more lasting bc methods (such as vasectomy, etc). what about chemical sterilization or injections? these are methods that prevent pregnancy most of the time and can be undone generally.

as for myself i am single and don't think i will ever be married. if i were i believe that i would have to find a spouse who does not want children. my life would be to terribly complicated by children and i am much more productive and able to do things without the hassle of children. i understand their value, but being a parent isn't for me (everyone is not made to be a father or a mother). if i die a virgin, so be it. i am and have been chaste so far in all my 30 years of existence and don't plan to deviate from that should i never marry.

[83. Eliana said the following at 10:26 PM on May 7:]

83

Andre, you quoted me:

'So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism.'

then you said: "... and I always thought that the way to know the truth was to read the Bible and to listen to what God has to say..."

You misread my sentence. I was saying the way to know the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church does teach that truth can be found in the Bible, but that is not the only source. The other source is Tradition. As St. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

The "letter" is the Bible. The word of mouth is "Tradition." The Catholic Church put together the Bible and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit discerned which books belonged there. How we as Catholics interpret the Bible is based on Tradition.

Mandi, for your information, St. Augustine was one of the bishops who agreed to the canon of books we have in the Bible today, at the time when the Bible was finalized. This was at the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. If he was as anti-Bible as you say, why was did he take part in and agree with the meeting which finalized the books we have in the Bible? This synod (meeting) of bishops sent their Bible list to the Church in Rome, including the Pope, for its approval as to what books should be in the Bible. So even in the formation of the Bible, the church in Rome gave the final approval.

This is the pattern of the Church which has kept unity, even in the face of conflicting doctrine. In the end, Rome, including the bishops and the pope, has the final authority. Even in the Bible, with the disagreement over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, we see this pattern. The bishops gather as a body to pray and discern over the matter. They come to a consensus, and in the end, Peter, who was the first pope and Bishop of Rome, is the one who speaks the final decision. The bishops defer to the pope, just as they did later in the compilation of the Bible.

So you'll accept the Bible from the Church, but nothing else.

[84. KathleenM12 said the following at 11:50 PM on May 7:]

84

Leah writes: "I think those who say NFP is ok but contraception isn't are being hypocritical. You don't like contraception because it means sex which is not open to conception- but so does NFP!!"

Good point Leah. I suspect that the reason the NFPers don't like contraception is that it's actually effective -- while NFP is pretty much a roll of the dice.
Of course the NFPers will say "When practiced correctly, it's very effective!" But that's like saying "When you practice the *correct* golf swing, you're certain to get a hole-in-one."

[85. Marci said the following at 6:23 AM on May 8:]

85

Hey All!

Thanks to all the people who have provided answers to my questions about Catholic doctrine and NFP/birthcontrol.

Ted Slater, this question is for you (of course, you can answer it as much as you see fit, and if any other posters have great thoughts on this, feel free to post them as well): I was intrigued by your suggestion that NFP violates the spirit of 1 Cor 7:1-5. So of course I read the passage - I totally had forgotten about verse 5!

But here's my dilemma! If the pill is an abortificant, as are IUDs etc, and diaphragms/barriers 'dont allow you to have sex as God intended it to be (of course, suggestions of Gods intent here a likely subject to debate, I'm thinking), and NFP -which I thought might be an answer to prayer - causes partners to defraud each other....what really IS left?!? I mean, I dont want to get pregnant immediately after I marry, although I plan to have children sooner rather than later (maybe dont have children for the first two years, and then start trying?)

And another question: is NFP really defrauding if both parties have agreed to abstain in certain periods? I mean, when men go off to war and the wives are still at home, theres no sex qoing on for a good long while in some cases - wouldnt NFP be the same thing, except shorter absences/abstinance periods?

If verse 4 and 5 are read together, isnt the implication that people dont selfishly defraud each other for bribery/punishment purposes. And then, there is verse 6 where Paul says he "speak[s] this by permission, and not of commandment" (Im not a Bible scholar, so maybe you'll have more insight into the contexts surrounding this verse when it was written, etc...)

Whatever you're thoughts are, I'd be really happy to hear them. I won't lie - I really intended on doing birthcontrol for the first two years, but if it can't be done from a biblical perspective, then it can't be done.

Blessings to you

[86. Leah said the following at 7:45 AM on May 8:]

86

Kathleen, I have no doubt that NFP is effective when used correctly, and I also believe that it is easier to use it correctly than to learn the correct golf swing! I'm more inclined to think their problem is that NFP is 'natural' while other contraceptives aren't. Which, of course, should not be the issue being debated- it should be whether or not sex can be separated from the possibility of conception. I believe it is totally Ok (provided it is not for selfish reasons), whereas these anti-contraceptionists seem to say contraception is wrong because it does that- but so does NFP!

[87. Leah said the following at 7:54 AM on May 8:]

87

Eliana- the tradition of the apostles is not the same as our tradition. The tradition of the apostles is what Jesus himself said to them. Very little of Catholic tradition is suggested by Jesus himself- most of it has been conceived by men.

And NOWHERE does the bible say anything about Peter being a Pope. That is just a concept being thrown around by Catholics because they like to "holify" people- as we see with "Saint" this and "saint" that, and with Mary being supposedly holier than normal people, etc.

Rome, bishops and popes do not have ultimate authority. The bible does. If the pope says something against the bible and you'd rather believe him than the bible, then there are some serious issues to be dealt with.

[88. Marci said the following at 8:17 AM on May 8:]

88

Eliana,

The problem with the "tradition" argument is that it is open to *much* abuse. And the emphasis you place on the Bible being 'from the church' really, really makes me uncomfortable. My comfort doesn't matter, but the problem with this emphasis is that as Christians, we should *all* believe that the formulation of the Bible was divinely inspired. This means that God was in control, even though he used humans to get the job done his way - NOT that humans actually made the Bible, which is what your statement leans towards.

And the other thing - the number one source of truth is the Bible - don't forget scriptures which speak of the problems we get into when we either add or subtract from the word of God! If we're being honest, there are certain *traditions* in various denominations that do add or subtract from the word of God - and this is a problem, no matter which denomination is guilty of this! That means that if your traditions in the Catholic church speak where God doesnt - or even have traditions in ways of thinking on certain subjects that are not biblically based this is a problem.

Now, I understand from some postings that the Catholic church is united, yet from others, that teachings have evolved such that sex between married people isn't considered lustful. This brings me to the question I asked about the catholic church being united in another posting - the *minute* you start saying the church as evolved, a religious tradition is not unified, because it is *impossible* for all aspects of a denomination to evolve equally and in the same ways - thus, unity is out of the question/not happening. This has been proven by the numerous posts on whether on what the Catholic church believes - Mandi's exposure to catholicism through education should *not* be discounted! The fact is, if this is what she was taught - and it evidently is not in accordance with her own beliefs, or she wouldn't have a problem with it - from the Catholic system for 15 years, that means there are still Catholics who view sexuality between married people in a way that is at odds with the Bible. And since some people are saying the church has evolved (and for the record, I believe this must be true in some senses/some people in the Catholic church for some of the views aired on this post have more Biblical views of married sexuality) this should also not be ignored, because these are the types of transitions and growing pains that are *characteristic* of any denomination in the midst of transforming their beliefs on any given subject - it takes a long long time (if ever achieved!) to have everyone think and believe the same way, even if changes have been made.

I personally remember with great fondness in The Sound of Music (which I love!) where Maria tells the abess she is ready to take her vows, because she realizes that captain Von Trap is going to marry the Baroness, and she's trying to find some way to deal with her emotions in a way that is acceptable, given the situation. So she tells teh abess "I am ready at this moment to take my vows" and the abess says to her "Maria, the love of a man and woman is holy too!".

I always thought this scene was pretty clear about the fact that Maria was struggling with atraction and love for Captain Von Trap - even though the scene may dance around the issue of sexuality/it's not explicit, isn't this what the discussion is all about? We all know the difference between being a nun and being a married woman (amongst other things) is that one is celibate and the other can have sex! So, I think this scene shows a positive portrayal of the Catholic church's more 'evolved' stance on sexuality in marriage - so yes, this evolution has happened. But I think people should be kinder to Mandi, because if this is what she was taught (and look how long ago the Sound of Music was made!) then evidently some aspects of the Catholic church have not united on this issue! And its no wonder: the written word/literature is one of the most powerful tools of propogating discourse. Literature does not stop being powerful simply because a church has evolved. And if this is what the literature is saying - literataure many people poured over for years, and taught their children, and even taught Mandi at school (let's be honest, since it's not her personal belief, obviously Mandi was taught these views at school, and this says something! For instance, if teachers or administrators still have these views, what does this say about how much 'evolving' has gone on? The literature previously written still guides their perspectives, etc...), it will be ages until the evolution of discouse will happen (more church leaders would need to write on this "change" for it to continue, etc...and even then....[sigh])

And this all still doesnt solve the questions in my previous email about NFP and defrauding, etc....[sight]

Blessings to you all!

[89. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:42 AM on May 8:]

89

Leah's comments regarding Papacy:

"And NOWHERE does the bible say anything about Peter being a Pope. That is just a concept being thrown around by Catholics because they like to "holify" people- as we see with "Saint" this and "saint" that, and with Mary being supposedly holier than normal people, etc."

The reference Roman Catholics refer to is in Matthew 16:17-19

"Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'"

Just to clarify the 2 Greek words for "rock" used here: The first word (Peter's name, 'Petros') refers to a smaller stone while the second refers to a boulder-sized one ('Petra'). Some commentators theorize that Jesus was actually refering to Himself when using the second word for "rock" in reference to Himself for building the church which does make sense given other references to God being a rock as well as Christ being a chief cornerstone (2 Sam 22:3, Psa 18:2, Eph 2:20, etc)

However even if we were to assume that Jesus did mean Peter as whom He was building His church upon there really is no rock-hard (sorry for the pun) evidence to show that Peter had any greater authority than any of the other apostles. In fact there were times when Paul had to chastise Peter because he was insisting Gentile Christians become circumcised and obey the Jewish Law.

I also find it curious that "Sainthood" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church requires a number of prerequisites among, other things two substantiated miracles. Yet throughout the Bible it seems to refer to all Believers as "saints".
I don't totally understand the purpose of giving the specific title of "sainthood" to specific people but even Paul said that all his credentials (Philip 3:4-9).

[90. Ted Slater said the following at 8:52 AM on May 8:]

90

Marci -- great questions. This is quite an unsettled issue -- even among the Boundless team, you'll find different responses. Let me give you my thoughts:

Focus on the Family has released a "position statement" on birth control. That's probably the best place to start. Here's an excerpt:

From the outset, Dr. Dobson would emphasize as foundational his strict concurrence with the biblical teaching that every child is a blessing from God. The entire ministry of Focus on the Family has been grounded upon this truth. While affirming that human life begins with fertilization (the union of sperm and egg), his interpretation of Scripture leads him to believe that the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong. However, he would oppose any method of birth control that acts after fertilization and terminates a conceived human life by preventing its implantation in the womb. For example, the intrauterine device, or IUD, as it is commonly called, is thought to interfere with implantation of the fertilized egg, and, therefore, may terminate human life in its very early stages.

Note the line, "the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong."

Most "pills" are abortifacients, but evidence indicates that some are not. Barrier methods (condoms, etc.) are also not abortifacients. Spermicides likewise are not abortifacients.

"Family planning" (whether "natural" or "unnatural") is something we should leave up to each family. It's our hope that these families recognize the blessing that children are, and that they're not rejecting or needlessly prolonging receiving this blessing by their choices. At the same time, there's grace and freedom to make decisions, for various legitimate reasons, that extend the time between childbirths.

Let me close with a question for those who insist that sex always be accompanied by the possibility that a child will be conceived: Are you against sexual activity when the wife is pregnant already, or during the period following birth when a mother is breastfeeding (God's imposition of birth control)? Such a dogmatic position is very problematic....

[91. Eliana said the following at 9:15 AM on May 8:]

91

Well, I had a response explaining the difference between NFP and contraception, but I guess the moderator decided not to include it or made a mistake. One brief reply is that with contraception you withhold your lifegiving aspect of yourself from your spouse, whereas with NFP you give all of yourself to your spouse.

Leah, let me just ask you if you have studied the writings of the early church and seen what they actually believed in the earliest centuries. You might be surprised by how many "Catholic" practices and Traditions dates back from the apostles' time. And if you trace the Popes back through the centuries, they go all the way back to Peter. Saints go back the beginning of the church. The early martyrs were revered by their fellow Christians, and were the first saints.

[92. Eliana said the following at 9:25 AM on May 8:]

92

Leah said:

"Ted Slater, this question is for you (of course, you can answer it as much as you see fit, and if any other posters have great thoughts on this, feel free to post them as well): I was intrigued by your suggestion that NFP violates the spirit of 1 Cor 7:1-5. So of course I read the passage - I totally had forgotten about verse 5!"

Well, if you are infertile for most of the month, then you would only be abstaining for a brief time during the fertile period and then coming back together, so it's only a limited time. Also, Christians were not known for using contraception like the culture around them, so basically St. Paul is saying that husbands and wives should accept their fertility from God and come together often, even it it means having children. He wasn't saying to have as much contraceptive sex as possible.

Also, he speaks of husbands and wives having authority over one anothers bodies. But in contraception you hold back the life-giving part of your body from your spouse, not allowing them control over you.

[93. Marci said the following at 9:41 AM on May 8:]

93

Ted Slater et al:

Thank you for your replies to my questions - they provided a lot of helpful information that will help me to make a wise descion when the time comes.

Blessings to you all!

[94. Ted Slater said the following at 9:46 AM on May 8:]

94

Again, Eliana, I believe your position is flawed because God Himself imposes seasons of infertility on women (the time after they give birth and are breastfeeding, for example). Would you say that God is sinning by inhibiting women from being able to conceive during that time?

Or what about when women are pregnant? Surely they can enjoy sex with their husbands, even though there's little chance such an encounter will result in conception.

In these two examples, by your definition, the "life-giving" dimension of sex is absent. And therefore such sexual activity is sinful?

Again, let me conclude that there are, even within Focus on the Family, valid differences of opinion on this issue. But there is some common ground. The things to keep in mind are that 1) children are indeed a blessing, and we could do better than to prolong or prohibit their birth, and 2) there are many valid reasons couples have for delaying or removing the possibility of getting pregnant.

FWIW, my wife and I had two daughters within the first couple years of our marriage.

[95. Mandi said the following at 9:48 AM on May 8:]

95

"Concerning Augustine and other early Church fathers: As I mentioned before, there has been a development of doctrine."

Bingo.

"Development of doctrine" is something that you are not entitled to engage in. On this, or any other subject. Even the Scripture you cited says this: it says "hold fast", not develop, twist, contradict, add to, subtract from. Hold fast.

The passages you and others referred me to that describe "lust" and "sexual immorality" in ways that completely defy Scriptures are not Apostolic Tradition. They are *Roman* tradition, but not *Apostolic*.

If they were Apostolic, you could trace them back to the beliefs and practices written by the men of faith who received the Light of Christ, either from our Savior Himself, or from His own Disciples. On these issues, the Roman Church can't. Just because someone like Augustine was around much closer to the time of Christ than you and I, it doesn't make his writing "Apostolic". To be "Apostolic" it needs to be in accordance with the teachings and practices of, well, the Apostles. When Augustine and Aquinas go off and start "developing doctrine", as you say, on the very holiness of the sex between a husband and wife -- and use language about harlotry, adultery, beastiality, and sodomy to describe marital sex, their writing cannot be said to be in accordance with that of the Apostles of Christ. Period.

Again, the Apostles taught that the "bed" was "undefiled", and then contrasted that with fornication and adultery in the very same sentence. Any teaching that "develops" the definition of "defiled" sexuality beyond that is not part of Holy Tradition. Period.

We also *clearly* see that the primary reason for marriage is for the avoidance of sexual immorality (which, after all, cannot be avoided outside of marriage, whereas procreation *can* happen outside of marriage):

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to *touch* a woman. ****Nevertheless, ***because of*** sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the *affection* due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband."

He's talking about "touching" in one verse, and following that with *"[n]evertheless, BECAUSE OF sexual immorality"*.

And Genesis 2 *clearly* shows that God made marriage to alleviate Adam's *loneliness*.

No one is saying that sex between a man and his wife can *never* be lustful. It can if it is nonconsensual. It can if it involves sodomy. It can if it involves 3rd parties. It can if one party has no regard for the physical or mental lack of willingness to participate.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We're not talking about unnatural positions or forced sex. We're talking about the very *nature* of (normal, consensual) sex between a husband and wife. It is holy. It is a glimpse of God's pleasure in *us*. (Yes, pleasure. Pleasure is one of the things God built into sex, as a way of building the bond and love, and cementing the life-long attraction between lifetime partners. It is wrong to say something that God made, in the context that He made it, is "lustful".) It is an image of God's love. Period. No one has the right to take what God has said is pure, undefiled, and reflective of *Him*, and say that it is -- gasp -- akin to sodomy and beastiality.

Augustine may have presided over the counsels that canonized the Scriptures as we know them today. But somehow that didn't stop him from writing about sex within marriage in ways that directly *contradict* those Scriptures.

Ironically, Apostolic Tradition, which you purport to defend, disproves everything you're saying. Not just from the biblical passages that point to the holiness of sex in marriage without need for justification by "openness" to procreation. But the Early Church had as its *norm* married priests. Because most of the Apostles were married. Even Peter! There was absolutely no consternation between having a man touch his wife and make love to her one day, and go and celebrate the Eucharist the very next, touching the true Body and handling the true Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. *That* should speak *volumes* about what Apostolic Tradition on this point is, and is not.

[96. Mandi said the following at 10:20 AM on May 8:]

96

Eliana,

You said: "Leah, let me just ask you if you have studied the writings of the early church and seen what they actually believed in the earliest centuries. You might be surprised by how many "Catholic" practices and Traditions dates back from the apostles' time."

With the greatest respect, I would invite you to do the same. You will find that you have had "development of doctrine", as you rightfully called it, on so very many issues, you would be surprised to see how little is *left* in the Roman Church.

*Just* off the top of my head, your teachings which have departed from the Early Church on everything from salvation, to the proper place of the Virgin Mary, to the proper order and administration of the mysteries/sacraments of initiation into the Church, to the exclusion of infants from the Eucharist, to the dropping of one of the elements of the Eucharist altogether, to your teachings about sex, to indulgences, to purgatory, to altering the liturgical worship, to virtually doing away with the fasts practiced by the Early Church, to infallibility, to alleged universal jurisdiction, to celibate priesthood as the norm. Not to mention the very doctrine of "development of doctrine". The teachings about these things have all been changed, or "developed", AWAY from Apostolic Tradition.

The Early Church had 4 main centres of Christendom: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome; later Constantinople became one too. Rome chose to depart ways at a certain point, most unfortunately. So it can no longer claim to be amongst those believing and doing things that date way back anymore.

"And if you trace the Popes back through the centuries, they go all the way back to Peter."

Sorry, again, this is something the Roman Church has not "held fast" to since the beginning either. For one thing, Peter started the Church in Antioch too. So why emphasize Rome? For another, Roman bishops for at least the first EIGHT centuries did not interpret Matt. 16:18 as later bishops who took to "developing" the reading of that did.

The "rock" is the *confession* of Peter, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God. It is on *that confession* that the Church is built, not on a mere mortal who *himself* required the Blood of Christ. It is nonsensical in the extreme to read this verse in contradiction to everything the Bible says about the very foundations of Christianity.

Our Lord Himself repeatedly put to rest issues of "who is the greatest" amongst His Disciples, of which Peter was one (Mark 9:33-35, Luke 9: 45-48, Luke 22:24-27).

The Roman Church's claims about Peter also directly contradict the biblical model of addressing questions/issues in the Church, found in Acts 15. If Peter was superior to all and his word was infallible, there would have been no *need* for a counsel of all the Apostles. Why bother come together as a *group* for the Holy Spirit to speak the answer if Peter was as you say he was?

I appreciate this can be a sensitive subject, and I didn't even want to "go there" with my posts specifically about fertility. But I can't just sit idly by and watch the Early Church be misrepresented like that. Perhaps that is all that you have been taught. But I encourage you to dig into the earliest centuries of Christianity to see what I am saying.

[97. ElianaMurphy said the following at 10:23 AM on May 8:]

97

Okay, last post on this topic. :)

Ted, you asked:
"Let me close with a question for those who insist that sex always be accompanied by the possibility that a child will be conceived: Are you against sexual activity when the wife is pregnant already, or during the period following birth when a mother is breastfeeding (God's imposition of birth control)? Such a dogmatic position is very problematic...."

Ah, so you are misunderstanding us. We are saying that couples need to be open to conception in the sense that they do not put up barriers to God's will and each other, and do not try as hard as possible to avoid the consequences of the sexual act. We are not saying that you can only have sex when you are fertile. To really understand all this better, how it works and the moral reasons behind it you would have to study about the Theology of the Body and NFP more, starting with the resources different posters mentioned.

As others have said, there is such beauty in Natural Family Planning, which can be used both to avoid or to achieve pregnancy. It is not merely a pregnancy prevention plan. It develops heightened awareness of the wonder of a woman's bodily design, and how she is graced with both fertile and infertile periods. However, it can be used selfishly and to always avoid pregnancy, and then it can become sinful.

But when used with the right heart of surrendering to God and to your spouse, it can be beautiful, as I know from seeing the lives of many Catholic couples. It allows the woman to keep her body free from poisonous medicines designed to kill either sperm or an early life. It allows the man to give himself fully into the innermost part of his wife, with no artificial barrier in between. It allows both husband and wife to enjoy their bodies unmutilated with removal of the organs which define male or female. It treats pregnancy as a healthy gift rather than as a disease or pestilence to be avoided at all costs when the parents do not want it.

In short, why not at least explore fully the option of NFP? It's benefits outweigh the cost, and allow husband and wife to be more close during sexual union than any type of contraception, since it is the only type that allows you to give your whole self--your soul, your body, your fertility and infertility. At least explore the option fully--you just might be surprised.

[98. John said the following at 11:05 AM on May 8:]

98

Mandi said:

"No one is saying that sex between a man and his wife can *never* be lustful. ... It can if it involves sodomy."

Are we sure about that? The Bible nowhere defines "sodomy," while it is clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their rampant homosexual and extramarital activity.

Not that it makes a great deal of practical difference to a celibate single man (who anticipates being married one day), but I was under the impression that within the marital relationship everything is fair game. Are prohibitions against "sodomy" between a husband and wife a Biblical command, or a tradition taught by men?

[99. André said the following at 11:23 AM on May 8:]

99

No offense meant, but all this talk about catholic teachings is making me think (literally): "Thank God for Reformation."

[100. Jason said the following at 12:16 PM on May 8:]

100

Ted, I doubt Eliana would call God a sinner for creating times of infertility since she referred to similar times of infertility herself when she talked about a couple coming back together during the infertile time of the month.

I think this can be a constructive discussion for people who are trying to decide what's right for their family, so I'll throw a couple new pieces into the mix that I hope will be helpful.

Kathleen, NFPers don't just say "When practiced correctly, it's very effective!" they say that NFP is just as effective as other forms of BC when you compare real world user effectiveness.

Research indicates that when an NFP-practicing woman conceives during a time when she thought she was infertile but it turns out she was just fertile enough, there may be an increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects due to aged gametes at the time of conception. Typepad blocked my links to the medical research, but Wikipedia lists several studies in the sources for this article on NFP

I'm willing to talk to anyone who has questions for a guy with a couple of years of NFP under his belt.

[1. John M. said the following at 10:14 AM on May 2:]

1

"A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation". While I agree with most of the article, I think the above statement needs to be fact checked. Studies have shown that having children has little net long-term effect on subjective levels of happiness. See the following.

http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/prc/pdfs/kohler05.pdf

[2. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 11:09 AM on May 2:]

2

Hmm. Ours is a truly scandalous situation in regard to the falling birthrate and its social consequences, but with all due respect to Mr. Dobson, I think his lament to be rather ironic considering the practice of contraception is well entrenched in contemporary Christian circles. Thus, it is insisted upon that "children are a blessing from God", but certainly not too many of course... and then we go on to decry the admittedly tragic situation emerging in the West precipitated by low birthrates. Who is to blame for that?

Could it be that we have tacitly accepted a practice that is rending the social fabric of our society apart with narry a protest to the contrary? When it comes to evanglical Christians it is high time a more adequate examination of contraception is undertaken instead of simply hoping those fanatical Catholic anti-contraception zealots are wrong. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

[3. kman said the following at 11:14 AM on May 2:]

3

I think if your main goal and hope in life is to have children/grandchilcren then yes I'd say it would be " a sadness and a deprivation."

I am married and cannot have children. It was not a happy discovery and took time to come to terms with. But I know this: My hope is in the Lord, regardless of my circumstances. Some people are sterile, or blind or paraplegic or any other of a number of
problems. God is still sovereign and makes ALL things work together for those who love Him. It is liberating to understand this, what the world may look at with pity, God sees as an opportunity to display His glory.

I have even used my situation to bring perspective to others. A friend of mine was lamenting that he would never get the car of his dreams. I said "Let me put that in perspective, I will never have children. Doesn't make the car thing that look so important now does it?" LOL

The other thing I keep in mind is that this world is a passing thing. When the Lord calls me home these cares and concerns will no longer be a part of my life. I will exchange the corruptible for the incorruptible.

[4. Holly said the following at 11:32 AM on May 2:]

4

Boundless has a long history of asserting that everyone must have children (some articles by J. Bud-unpronounceable last name come to mind). While having children is doubtless the right choice for most Christians, it is not a commandment. There is no Biblical requirement that all couples have children. There are plenty of inheritable medical conditions that make life very difficult, and not wanting to pass that on to another person is a legitimate reason not to procreate. (Disclosure: that is my reason for not procreating.) Many childless couples of my acquaintance do a lot of good with their time and money. Robert and Joy have put all of their nieces and nephews, plus four kids from our church, through college. As far as the accusations of selfishness...if someone knows before they have a child that they are too selfish to be a good parent, and they are not HIGHLY motivated to overcome that character defect, isn't it better that they not procreate? Would we, as a society, prefer those people to have kids who will be neglected emotionally and poorly supervised? Also, having children can be motivated by selfishness. The universal objection to childlessness-by-choice is, "Who's going to take care of you when you're old?" followed by, "You're selfish!" LOL.

The argument about spreading faith and conservative ideology by having more children is flimsy. Growing up in a Christian family or attending Christian schools is no guarantee that a Christian adult will result. A young boy named Brian Warner went to Christian schools. You may know him by his stage name, Marilyn Manson.

Lastly, I used to work as an obituary writer. Obits listing no kids as survivors were just as full of accomplishments (often more so), community involvement, and other evidence of productivity and functional citizenship as obits listing one or more children as surviving the decedent. And as to the "childless old age" idea, guess what? The OVERWHELMING majority of the thousands of obituaries I wrote said the person died in a nursing home, even when there were dozens of adults in the family -- often six or more children, two dozen grandchildren, and 40 or 50 great-grandchildren, and where was Granny? In a nursing home.

Who's going to take care of me when I'm old? The seven-dollar-an-hour staff at the nursing home - the same as the VAST majority of parents.

[5. xeres said the following at 11:49 AM on May 2:]

5

Holly, this world is messed up as it is. We pretty idolized every single thing we could get our hands on to a point where it seems that there is no use uphold the Christian perspective on anything anymore without benting it to our own understanding.

On the sidenote, children are a blessing.

[6. Erica said the following at 11:57 AM on May 2:]

6

I always enjoy reading your blogs. Remember that it is only in the first world countries that the populating has been falling since industrialization. Since industrialization, opportunities has been opened for girls to attend school. When girls attend school and college she will start having children at a later age than her friends who have not attend school neither complete high school. She will also have less children and will find it easier to adequately look after her children. This is noticed in the third world countries also.

Conctraception is not a bad thing for married couples as some of you have mentioned. Note I did not say singles. It gives a woman's body an opportunity to recover after child birth. A woman's body doesn't completely heal until 2 years after delivery. It puts her in a better frame of mind and makes her less depressed when her children are not born too close together. I once heard a woman said how shame she felt to have 2 years old, 9 months old and is pregnant with a third one.

Frequently I read here that the best childbirth period is in your twenties and that woman in their thirties is not as fertile as a woman in her twenties. Child bearing period begins at puberty 10-12 and can last until the late forties. My mother has her first child at 16 and me, her last was born, when she was 37 years. Her child bearing period spanned 21 years where she has given birth to 9 children. Seven survived infancy. One her friends too started during teenage years and have her last children (twins) at 49 years. This lady has 16 children. All of this lady's pregnancies are normal as IVF is not known in this part of the island I live on. Those two children weighed 1 pound each at birth.

My mother always told me we women in this time are fortunate we have the choice whether we want a child or not. They didn't have contraceptives. I read in the Times Magazines that Audrey Yates and her Russell Yates said on their wedding day they will not use contraceptive. Three months later she was pregnant and end up given birth to 6 children in 8 years. She was a stay at home mom who homeschool her older children. Given birth to so many children took a toll on her mind.

A lot of your blogs condemn contraceptives for marriage couples. I believe some of your readers are students who have not faced with the responsible of dealing with a toddler. If they have two toddlers, 3 year old, 18 months have to look after 6 month old baby they will be singing a different tune.

[7. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 12:07 PM on May 2:]

7

I pose an informal question to all here: how many of you are willing to clean out your medicine cabinets of birth control pills and condoms? Or, if you are engaged to married, or hope to marry someday, how many of you are willing to forego their use altogether?

[8. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 12:36 PM on May 2:]

8

Holly and Eric: the proper response to a loving Creator who gave you life is not, "I know better".

[9. Mandi said the following at 12:59 PM on May 2:]

9

"how many of you are willing to clean out your medicine cabinets of birth control pills and condoms?"

Whoa. Abortifacients (birth control pills) and non-abortifacients (condoms) should not be lumped as evil in the same breath. One can interfere with an already-conceived human being's survival (according to the drug makers themselves), and the other can never. People can make arguments all around about expenses, neglect, and whatever else in terms of controlling family size, but surely one thing we can *all* agree about as Christians is that methods of birth control that sometimes result in the killing of our children are out of bounds.

That said, it is neither biblical to view children as strictly expenses (as the vehemently pro-contraceptive crowd generally does), nor as justifications of sex between married couples (as the vehemently anti-contraceptive crowd does).

re: "Catholic anti-contraceptive zealots"

The Roman Church's teachings about contraception stem in large part from its own innovations in terms of teaching on sex. This business that every act of sexual intercourse should be "open" to procreation, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that it would be *sinful* for a husband and wife to make love *knowing* that either was not fertile. That would mean that technically, a man and his wife could only make love about 4 or 5 days a month. That thinking cannot even be supported by the nature God created us with: that women are not always fertile. If we were, there might be some merit to that argument. But God has created us with a very limited ability and timeframe within which we are fertile.

And that's not simply in terms of the number of days a month, but even in terms of the seasons of life. Nursing moms who *exclusively* breastfeed and do not rely on soothers or bottles for comfort, feeding, etc., find that such nursing naturally suppresses their ovulation. (That's why many women in "less developed" countries often have at least 2 years of space between their kids, despite the lack of availability of more artificial spacers.) Married couples beyond their fertile years do not sin by continuing to engage in sexual intercourse; any "openness" to procreation based on reading the *miracles* in the Scriptures about the conception of certain prophets is a rather superficial "openness". The same is true for married couples who are infertile; God has chosen to close the womb in such situations, but that does not mean that their sex is any less holy.

The Roman Church also lives out this diminished view of sex in another of its innovations, celibate priesthood as the norm (which I commented on at "Makin on Piper").

The Scriptures themselves speak about how "marriage is honourable among all and the bed undefiled". Consenual sex between a husband and wife is holy. Period. It need not be justified by "openness" to conception for it to be so. That is what the Bible teaches. That is what the Early Church, which chose the books to be canonized in the Bible, taught. Were it not so, the Bible is explicit enough in its commands about sexual intercourse that it would have made the Roman innovation clear.

None of this is to say that the *separate* issue of being fruitful and multiplying means having more than 1 or 2 kids if people are physically able to. The de-population of our communities is surely a reflection of a turn away from such Scripture.

Nor is it to say that the pro-contraceptive choice mindset leads to a biblical view of children. It often doesn't. It can easily lead one away from the biblical view of children as blessings to a view that they're expenses, rights, accessories, etc. But it doesn't necessarily -- so we shouldn't be quick to condemn those who would *never* knowingly use an abortifacient as being two-faced or anti-children.

[10. DrLiz said the following at 1:04 PM on May 2:]

10

I'll take the bait, Jeffery. I would not use artificial forms of birth control if I got married. Admittedly, at 39 and single, this isn't likely to make a difference anyway. Except that even at my "advanced" age, I will not marry someone who is not willing to have children if we are so blessed.

Now, if I had had the chance to marry young, I would use Natural Family Planning (which is NOT the "rythmn method" and is as effective if not more effective than other forms of birth control) if I wanted to limit or try to limit my family size. This would also help with the spacing issue, as would extended breast feeding, although the later is not feasible for some working mothers and is not a guarantee of delayed return of fertility.

I admit, I'm pretty passionate about this issue, and I stand alone among my evangelical protestant friends on this one. These are women in their early 30's who have no problem telling God they are done with having children. The thing is, I can admit that my view on this topic is affected by being 39 and childless (and single). They can't seem to admit that their situations also affect their view on the matter. I've done a lot of research on this, and thought about it and prayed about it. But if they take me seriously and really listen to me, they might have to rethink decisions that were made long ago for largely pragmatic, worldly reasons. I'm not saying there is never a case for birth control, but I do believe that the vast majority of the church buys into the world's view of children as burdens not blessings (e.g.,children are what happens when birth control 'fails').

[11. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 1:07 PM on May 2:]

11

I already posted on this on the article 'Marriage and the "Valour of Youth"'. I think it is worth mentioning again as it is more applicable to this topic. So here it is:

"Getting married young is the best way to go! People should get married between 17-22, no later. You should also have kids immediately after getting married and never use birth control throughout your entire marriage (which should last as long as you are both alive). Then raise your kids in the fear of the Lord, and remember to teach them to do the same thing. After about three generations conservative Christians would so outnumber any other group that we would easily lead this country with much less taxes and much less government intervention. It would be great! I know I'm doing my part!"

It seems someone actually read my post.

xeres had the following to say on Apr 23 at 5:59 PM

"Zeph, are you totally serious, totally joking or in between?"

Well I actually hoped that people would do what I said, but I really didn't think that they would so I wrote out a response to clarify:

"xeres:

I would be serious if I thought people would take me seriously. I got married at 21 while my wife was 19 and we have been married a year and have our first child. I'm honestly very thrilled with where I'm at and although I know it isn't possible for everyone to follow the same path I did there are so many people who just dismiss it outright. They would say that its too young or that they need to finish college or some other priority.

With liberals in our society delaying marriage and using birth control, they're pushing America towards an average of 1.2 children per couple. Now it seems that someone, possibly those same people, has done a great job attaching a negative stigma towards people with big families. I say its time we countered that and thought of children as the blessing that God describes them as.

If we were to raise our children to follow in the same pattern it is not difficult to see that the political arena would shift dramatically once our posterities' posterities were adults. Imagine after just two generations of conservatives having on average between six and ten children while liberal families only have one or two. It would be quite different to say the least.

Now I know not all children choose to follow in their parents footsteps and there would still be quite a variety of opinions. There would probably still be some children who manage to shift all the way to the left regardless of their upbringing. However I'm just playing the odds here and since children tend to follow closely to their parents and because there would be so many children of conservative parents that given some time there would be a whole lot more conservatives.

This is my plan for political reform in this country. We might be able to even get rid of income tax! The thing is it takes everyone working together. As you can tell by the post on this blog even people who normally agree can't find a consensus on what is the best plan for marriage and family. Maybe I should start some sort of non-profit political group, but though I know this plan would work I'm not sure I could convince people to implement it."

[12. Becky F. said the following at 1:17 PM on May 2:]

12

Just because a person uses birth control doesn't mean they don't intend to have a lot of children. My parents used various forms of BC between each of their 5 children, and we are all 2 to 2½ years apart... purposefully. They did this so that they wouldn't have tons of babies/toddlers at one time. It's easier to care for your children (my mom stayed at home with us and homeschooled for 15 years) when they are spaced far enough apart that the older siblings can understand why mom can't devote all her time to them anymore, and those older siblings can do many things for themselves.

At the beginning of last year my then-fiance and I did a lot of thinking and researching on birth control. I know many of the readers here think that birth control pills are wrong (because they believe pills are abortofacients), but if it prevents any ovulation from occuring, there is no fertilization taking place, but I don't want to start an argument on BC pills, just stating my personal opinion. I was really struggling with whether I wanted to use any form of birth control, because I wasn't sure if it would be right at all. However, God did give us free will, and he allowed smart people to develop modern medicine for our benefit. So, I was on BC pills for a few months, and my biggest concern was how the hormones would affect my body (I gained like 20lbs, which is why after I deliver our baby I'm not going to use hormonal BC anymore).

My husband is a full-time seminary student. He has two whole years before he gets a job as a pastor of a church. Last year when we got married it was three years left of seminary, two of those years with me being the primary income, because this next coming year he has an internship instead of classes. How responsible would it have been for us to just forgo any family planning and just see what happens when we knew we wouldn't be having a very good income for a few years? And again, how responsible would it be for us to not use BC again after this baby is born and potentially have a 2nd baby before he's done with seminary, and then neither of us would be able to work?

Having a baby is expensive: insurance, nursery items, clothing, and diapers especially, etc. My 19 year old sister and her husband are living with my parents right now because she got pregnant before they got married, so they obviously weren't planning for things. I don't think God wants us to almost willingly live paycheck-to-paycheck because we did not plan for the future and did not delay children, at least for a little while. My husband and I only delayed the possibility of conception for 5 months, but we had that time to really plan out our finances over the coming years. My older sister used/uses BC, but she's hoping to have at least 4 children (and she's halfway there at 25 years old).

I don't think that family planning, whether using BC between pregnancies/children or not, is wrong. It is exercising good stewardship over the resources God has given you.

Birth control does not equal IUDs, hormone pills, patches, etc., and morning after pills only. The rhythm method and barrier methods, when used properly can be very effective. If a Christian couple is mutually abstaining during the woman's fertile time of the month, is that form of birth control wrong?

Sorry this got so long. :)

[13. nikki said the following at 1:20 PM on May 2:]

13

Boundless likes people to get married, and believes most apparent outside "barriers" to marriage are surmountable. All this is rightly so! But, cannot those same "barriers" make a poor or undesirable environment for raising children? If my boyfriend and I get married when we'd like to, we will both have another year of college left after the wedding. I doubt that two full-time students would make excellent parents. (We will likely be "scrimping by" as it is.) I don't see anything wrong with waiting another year or two to bring children into the world...in fact, it seems the much wiser path. If we'd like to enter into the marriage relationship sooner rather than later (as Boundless would strongly encourage, and I would as well), then perhaps the trade-off should be delaying offspring. Surely there is a wiser time and a "foolisher" time to bear children, just as there is for nearly every other decision in life?

In my situation, at least how I view it from this point in time (and I know it might change as I grow older), there would be several good reasons wait to procreate, and no good reasons not to wait. The only negative consequence I can think of: waiting too long and becoming infertile from old age. I'm 21 now so I'm not stressed about that quite yet. ;)

[14. John M. said the following at 1:26 PM on May 2:]

14

kman,

"I think if your main goal and hope in life is to have children/grandchilcren then yes I'd say it would be " a sadness and a deprivation."

Sure, but the article didn't qualify it with an "if". It made a universal statement. Also note: Even if your lifelong goal is to have kids, take into account that it's still possible for them to make you miserable no matter how much you love them.

[15. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 1:34 PM on May 2:]

15

I also want to let Erica know that if a woman is breastfeeding exclusively and not returning to work it is very likely she will not get pregnant again for over a year and possible she might not even have a period for two whole years. DrLiz was refering to this when she said "natural child spacing". There is a lot of information on it. You can check with La Leeche League or check out the book "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing".

[16. Mandi said the following at 2:03 PM on May 2:]

16

"I know many of the readers here think that birth control pills are wrong (because they believe pills are abortofacients), but if it prevents any ovulation from occuring, there is no fertilization taking place, but I don't want to start an argument on BC pills, just stating my personal opinion."

Neither do I (want to start an argument), Becky F., but for the sake of clarity and truth, I would add the following to my previous comments.

Preventing ovulation = contraceptive. That's not killing.

Preventing *implantation* = abortive.

Something that's sometimes contraceptive and sometimes abortive (and you'll never know which because it all happens inside) = abortifacient.

Terminology is key here.

It is a common misconception that the Pill only works by either preventing sperm from reaching the egg or by preventing ovulation. If that's all it did, it would be strictly contraceptive.

But drug companies that make the pills clearly identify at least one other mode of operation: thinning of the lining of the womb (endometrium). If the first two mechanisms fail (thereby producing a human being), this one kicks in. And that is besides the fact that the drug makers instruct you to double or triple up on doses if you miss a pill, which is the same as taking the "morning-after" pill.

Again, terminology is key.

Pro-aborts and drug makers are able to claim that the Pill doesn't sometimes cause abortions because they've conveniently (and deviously) re-defined when "pregnancy" begins to the point of "implantation". Some of their literature on this is so appallingly misleading, they actually claim that implantation of "the egg" (what "egg" are they talking about after conception???) as a mechanism. Unfortunately, some of those sources are only hard copies. (Other sources shamelessly admit interference with a "fertilized egg".)

Here's a *small sample* (I've got lots more where this came from) of the information available online about the science of this, minus the philosophical issue of whether controlling family size per se is right or wrong:

http://www.epm.org/articles/larimore_list.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html -- (note that these "failure" rates should mean nothing to Christians, or other pro-lifers, because of a the ready admission that the "success" rates *include* prevention of implantation)

http://www.polycarp.org/postfert_oc.htm

http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?id=466 shows the typical language used for these pills in the "Physicians' Prescribing Info" (as opposed to the glossy, colorful, large-print literature distributed to patients, where such information is often omitted) about the mode of action of these pills: "Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotrophins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations *include* changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) *and the endometrium (which reduce the liklihood of implantation)*" (my emphasis).

God bless.

[17. Anna said the following at 3:09 PM on May 2:]

17

Zeph, you said "Imagine after just two generations of conservatives having on average between six and ten children while liberal families only have one or two. It would be quite different to say the least."

While it's an interesting idea, I really disagree with the premise that more kids born in conservative families would necessarily equal more conservatives in the future.

I am one of 6 kids raised in a Christian, moderate-conservative home. Now that we range from 15-24, only 2 of us are still in the church (2 others say they don't even believe in God). None of us could be called politically conservative -- I myself consider myself moderate-liberal.

Obviously this is totally anecdotal, and no doubt the beliefs of especially my younger siblings aren't set in stone, but I feel like my family shows that being a loving, conservative, Christian parent does not guarantee that your kids will turn out exactly like you.

I plan on having 3 or 4 children and loving them, teaching them, and raising them in the church, but I know that they will be the ones who ultimately chose what they believe.

[18. Jethro said the following at 3:20 PM on May 2:]

18

Jeffrey,

My wife and I use birth control (the pill) because at this point in our lives we have no desire to have children. The problem with that is?

[19. Mandi said the following at 3:43 PM on May 2:]

19

Jethro,

I can't speak for Jeffrey, but the problem with your use of the pill is the abortifacient nature of that form of birth control, as outlined in the comments above. If you don't want kids at this time, at least don't use methods of birth control that are *made* to interfere with the implantation of a newly conceived child if the contraceptive mechanisms fail.

[20. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 3:55 PM on May 2:]

20

I note some very interesting comments here.

Did any of you know that "birth-control" was not a Catholic/Protestant issue until 1930 when the Anglican Lambeth Conference became the very first religious body claiming the name Christian to allow contraception. Granted, they did not possess chemical contraceptives, but the situation is clearly analogous.

All chemical contraceptives are also abortifacient as well. This is well documented, even by the manufacturers themselves.

DrLiz: bravo!

Jethro: Why is contraception wrong? Because it is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

[21. ccinnova said the following at 4:28 PM on May 2:]

21

I'm deeply disturbed by the harsh and judgmental tone of some of the comments in this thread.

There are various reasons why some couples may choose not to have children either for a period of time or not at all. Some of the considerations could be health-related, others may be economic. Or perhaps a couple may have married later in life and choose not to have children because of age or health issues.

The declining fertility rate is an important issue, but simply telling people to marry young and have lots of babies irrespective of economic considerations, hereditary diseases and other factors is not the solution. God provides, but He also expects us to use godly wisdom in making important life-changing decisions.

[22. Rachel said the following at 4:38 PM on May 2:]

22

Jethro:
The pill can work as an abortefacient. I'd call that a problem.

I wonder what it is that people find objectionable about Natural Family Planning. Sure, it takes a little more work, but it also aids in self-discipline and self-control, and requires the couple to really examine whether or not God wants them to have a new child each month.

Mandi:
I'm not sure you understand the Catholic position on sex and marriage. If you're really interested, there are several good commentaries on the Theology of the Body by Christopher West. I'd recommend checking them out. The Church certainly does NOT teach that a couple is sinning by having sex when the couple is not fertile; in fact, the Church teaches that it is sometimes appropriate and responsible to only engage in the marital act during these times in order to delay the conception of children. The teaching is that the ACT of intercourse cannot be tampered with.

Just thought you might like to know what the Church really says.

Interesting link, btw, about Catholics and Protestants concerning contraception:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Enjoy!

-Rachel

[23. Marci said the following at 5:00 PM on May 2:]

23

DrLiz,

OHHHHH NOOOOO you didn't lol! Let me tell you how this lady I know got pregnant with all FIVE of her children on the "rhythm method"! This method is NOT neccessarily safe - a woman's body must be very very stable and predicatable for it to work. Based on this, I certainly *certainly* will not be relying upon this method when I marry.

Personally, I'm considering using either birthcontrol (I agree with Becky F's stance that birthcontrol is not neccessarily abortive, etc) or an IUD (which I'm leaning towards, beacuse I don't want the hassle of always trying to remember if I took my magic pill for the day, and apparently, it's got a phenomenal prevention rate).

So I differ: I will most certainly use birth control because I do not want to wind up pregnant in the first two years of marriage. After the first two years, I'm good to go (of course, if my husband and I get 'blessed' before we've planned, there's nothing more to say but 'not my will, Lord, but yours be done' lol!)

My 2 cents

Blessings to you all!

[24. Marci said the following at 5:09 PM on May 2:]

24

Hello All!

Question: Do people consider IUD's contraception or abortificants? I want to hear your thoughts on this one.

Blessings to you all!

[25. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 6:21 PM on May 2:]

25

Jeffrey Whiting -

What would be your take on a woman (married or not) who takes birth control pills solely for the purpose of controlling her menstrual cycle so that she is not crippled with pain one week out of every month?

[26. Ana said the following at 7:09 PM on May 2:]

26

Children of the Refomration: A Short and Surprising History of Protestantism and Contraception
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2003/0603Wolf.html

"It was obvious to the Protestant Reformers that the natural purpose in marital union was procreative as well as unitive. This revelation of God in natural law was reflected in His dealing with Onan, who, in Genesis 38, was commanded by his father, Judah, to take his late brother Er’s wife as his own, in order that their offspring might be counted as Er’s, receiving his inheritance (a Levirate marriage). Onan took Er’s wife into his bed but “wasted his seed on the ground” and, thus, contracepted. Moses tells us that “the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him . . . ”

Modern Protestant scholars insist that it was what Onan intended to do—thwart the purpose of the Levirate marriage—that displeased God. After all, you cannot thwart God’s providence, no matter how hard you try, and Onan was under no natural law and, thus, had freedom to contracept in any other situation. Historic Protestantism, on the other hand, unanimously saw the action of Onan as a violation of natural law. In his commentary on Genesis, Martin Luther called Onan’s act sodomy:

[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.

John Calvin agreed, calling Onan’s act “doubly monstrous” and tantamount to a “violent abortion” in which the “offspring of his brother” was “torn from the mother’s womb” and “cast on the ground.” Similar natural-law arguments were made by John Wesley, the great Baptist Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and Reformed commentator Matthew Henry, among countless others.

[27. Steve Watters said the following at 7:21 PM on May 2:]

27

Several people commented on the fact that the babies of conservative or Christian parents won't necessarily be conservative or religious when they grow up. There is some truth in that. My twin brother who grew up with me in a pastor's home turned out to be quite a prodigal. We know also that there's a lot of concern about Christian parents not passing their faith on to the next generation.

Philip Longman, however, states in the quote from my post, "Though children born into religious families often do not become religious themselves, many do, especially if they themselves go on to have children."

He's done his homework and I've seen other sociologists reinforce the point that a substantial number of people raised in Christian homes do end up holding on to or at least coming back to their faith (often when they have children as Longman noted). The likelihood of Christian parents passing along their faith is strong enough that people like Longman are warning their fellow liberal friends about the real possibility he sees of the babies in today's church nurseries having a strong influence over the next generation.

[28. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 7:28 PM on May 2:]

28

I have had the opportunity to talk to a few Middle Eastern students about a topic relevant to this post. In their culture, parents provide almost everything for their children until they are 21 or so. One of my friends that lived in Dubai before coming to my university said that it is almost unheard of for high school students to get part time jobs (bear in mind that families that can send their children to study in the West are probably fairly well-off). When your parents are elderly, you are expected to care for them. In our society (in Canada even more than in the US), the state has replaced the family as the institution that provides for the young and the old. I'm not sure which way is better; the family seems more natural, but provision by the state makes it less likely that people will "slip through the cracks" if they are poor or childless.

[29. Kate said the following at 7:47 PM on May 2:]

29

Mandi, you're right that God gives us only a limited time of fertility, but this simply confirms the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that contraception is wrong because it disrespects the body and the beauty and holiness of God's design for sex! God is *so* loving - He gives us an abundance of days during the month in which we can make love with our spouse and not become pregnant, if we have serious reasons for not having a baby right now. Fertility is His gift and it is *good* - it's not a disease to be controlled by taking the Pill or using condoms.

When the Catholic Church speaks of the marital act being "open to life" it means open by its *nature*, not by its degree. Contraception is wrong because it changes the nature, or the orientation, of the sexual act. Infertile and older couples can still have open-to-life sex because they can still give themselves completely to each other in the full act of love that by God's design is *oriented towards life*.

Although couples often use them in good faith, using a condom when making love is an unloving and deeply irreverent act. At the very moment a man is meant to be giving himself totally to his wife, he ejaculates into a piece of latex - not into her body. They do not physically become "one flesh" because they are not giving and receiving their bodies in their wholeness and goodness.

This is the nub of the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception - because whether the contraceptive is internal or external (excepting genuine medical uses of the Pill) you are rejecting a part of your body or your spouse's body - and not a trivial part, but their very masculinity or femininity - their very bodiliness as male and female.

God's design for sexual intercourse is profound and wonderful. It is disrespectful to God not to reverence His design and to appreciate and use the periods of fertility and infertility that He has so lovingly given us!

For Christians, it also goes against the sacramentality of marriage - "the great mystery" of which Paul speaks in Ephesians. The love between husband and wife is meant to physically image Christ's free, total, faithful and fruitful love for His bride, the Church.

Of course sex is holy and it's never wrong to want to make love with your spouse and to seek that union for pleasure and bonding. But our bodies are a *gift* and lovemaking must always affirm the other person's body in their wholeness, including their fertility or their infertility. When we engage in sexual intercourse we must give and receive each other totally - just as we are at that very moment! - because this is how God loves us. And because God's love is life-giving, so the act of love is oriented, by its nature, towards life.

[30. Holly said the following at 7:50 PM on May 2:]

30

Jeffrey Whiting...for me to procreate, a specific situation is required. Namely, a husband who, besides meeting all necessary standards of Godliness, can provide a living situation with easy access to numerous specialists, for both me and the future child/children, the significant financial resources required to pay for extensive medical care and therapy, the financial resources to pay for the extensive help with childcare that my condition would require (or the financial resources allowing him to work only part-time, from home), and the emotional and spiritual maturity to cope with it all. When God wants me to procreate, those things will be provided. As my fertility is waning (in part due to my medical issues), it is a reasonable belief on my part that God does not want me to procreate -- He and I seem to share the belief that society can do without my genes being passed along. Your presumptive, judgmental comment directed at me demonstrates that you do not possess these necessary qualities and thus cannot provide what is required. Unless and until you do, it is YOU who is saying to the creator that YOU know best -- and not best for yourself, but best for me, a woman you've never met. Every once in a while, I wonder why my cousins tell me that I'm the only Christian they know who doesn't automatically think the worst of people. Thank you for helping to answer that question. It gives me something to pray about.

[31. k. said the following at 8:36 PM on May 2:]

31

Personally, I've pretty much always known I wanted kids, whether biologically or through adoption. A coworker of mine just as vehemently does NOT want them (and refers to parents as "breeders"). Honestly? I don't think she'd do a very good job of parenting, and it's probably just as well that's not on her list of goals.

As an aside, I have a friend who doesn't believe in birth control. She got pregnant on her honeymoon, and had three children VERY closely together (natural spacing didn't work for them). Although she wouldn't go back and do anything differently given the chance, it did take a toll on her physical and emotional health (both post-partum depression, and difficult pregnancies). I, on the other hand, am not the type to get pregnant without wanting to. I think both our perspectives are valid. If you want to have six children, great, go for it. It's also okay to *not* want a huge brood.

[32. Becky F. said the following at 8:57 PM on May 2:]

32

I think matters like birth control are going to have to be between individual people and God. Obviously, there is a variance of opinion between different Christians, just like on all issues (which is why the Church will never be unified).

[33. Heather said the following at 9:42 PM on May 2:]

33

There are a lot of good reasons why Christians should not accept the world's view on birth control. Until 1930, the "crazy Catholics" (that includes me) were not the only Christians who thought birth control was wrong. Touchstone Magazine has an excellent article about birth control and Protestants, "Children of the Reformation," that I would encourage everyone to read. You can find it here: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Also, to Mandi, I gather that you are part of an Orthodox church. I respect the Orthodox churches very much, and I am interested in hearing the perspective of Christians in those churches. However, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps you are not the most qualified person to say what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or believes about marriage or sex? Because you have misstated several Catholic beliefs in your recent posts. I don't have time to correct all of your statements, but I would say that it is absolutely false that the Catholic Church only allows sex during a woman's fertile period. For a very well-reasoned explanation of the Catholic teaching on the unitive and procreative nature of sex, there is a great article by Elizabeth Anscombe, "Contraceptio and Chastity" for anyone who is interested: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml.

There are also numerous other resources available on the web, like this one: http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/daytext.cfm?TextID=561 and in bookstores to explain accurately the Catholic view. Christopher West's books are a good place to start.

God bless,
Heather

[34. Lucy said the following at 10:13 PM on May 2:]

34

Mandi,
If the "Roman Church" does, as you say, hold to a "diminished view" of marriage and sexual relationships, then why on earth does she view marriage as a sacrament?

[35. KathleenM12 said the following at 10:28 PM on May 2:]

35

"A childless and grandchildless old age is a sadness and a deprivation.."

Flat declarations like this, devoid of substantion, don't make a terribly convincing case. Is there any evidence that childfree couples are less happy than those with children? I haven't seen any.

Anectdotal evidence, of course, can swing any which way. I've seen happy and fulfilled retirees of both versions -- and it seems to have little to do with having children. Negative fault-finding people are generally unhappy (complaining about their children/grandchildren, if they have them; complaining about the weather/food, if they don't); sunny, optimistic people are generally happy.

One thing we do know: people without children generally have a lot more expendable income throughout their lives and into retirement. Not a judgement or a recommendation, just a statement of economic fact.

And kudos to Holly for the observation about "selfishness". The fact is, the reason people have children is because they personally want them. Not having them because you don't want them is no more "selfish" than the alternative (and possibly less so because you aren't looking to another person to satisfy your own lifestyle desires).

[36. nikki said the following at 10:58 AM on May 3:]

36

Does the Catholic Church disallow natural planning, or rhythmic planning...whatever you want to call it? If so, how is that any different in principle than a non-abortifacient Pill? Actually, this question could be answered by anyone who approves of natural planning but not chemical/barrier methods. I want to know what makes one right and the other wrong. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am just honestly wondering if there is some inherent difference I'm not seeing here.

[37. Becky F. said the following at 11:07 AM on May 3:]

37

IUDs are objectionable in my opinion. Besides, a doctor won't prescribe it for a woman who has not had any babies before. From doing a little research IUDs can be used as emergency contraception, so they certainly could be considered abortofacients.

I think after my baby is born I'm going to use a barrier method (most likely a diaghram, my mom used one at one point and liked it, not to mention it doesn't have any hormones!).

[38. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 11:39 AM on May 3:]

38

Anna:

"Now I know not all children choose to follow in their parents footsteps and there would still be quite a variety of opinions. There would probably still be some children who manage to shift all the way to the left regardless of their upbringing. However I'm just playing the odds here and since children tend to follow closely to their parents and because there would be so many children of conservative parents that given some time there would be a whole lot more conservatives."

[39. Mandi said the following at 12:35 PM on May 3:]

39

Jeffrey Whiting,

Since you started this ;), I'd usually be inclined to respond to your answer first. (I.e., your answer to Jethro was that the Pill was wrong, "[b]ecause it is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.")

However, you'll hafta take a number because I seem to be outnumbered on the forum right now in terms of basing my objections to the teachings of the Roman Church on the supremacy of God's Word and sound explanations of it from the earliest centuries of Christianity based on Apostolic Teaching.

I also take seriously the invitations to read some of the material others persuaded by this view have tried to link me to, so I'm still trying to get through reading them before I respond in full. Not that you're sitting by the computer waiting with baited breath or anything. ;)

[40. Marci said the following at 3:15 PM on May 3:]

40

Becky F,

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't realize IUD's would count as abortificants. I will do some research on the diaphragm, though, to see if I'll be comfortable using it when I get marrried...because I, too, am not keen on gaining weight from birthcontrol, or taking a risk of other adverse effects of the hormones on my body...

If anyone knows of a good source of info about diaphragms (reliable internet site, etc) feel free to send it along...

Blessings to you all!

[41. Rachel said the following at 3:47 PM on May 3:]

41

Becky:
"Which is why the Church will never be united." Wow, pessimism! :) Not sure I'd go that far; we've got a long way to go, but if we have to be united in heaven, we'd better hold out hope for here, no?

[42. Anachronism said the following at 4:27 PM on May 3:]

42

My future bride and I agree that we will not be using any artificial means to prevent having children when we are married. If we don't want kids right away, we will have to make the sacrifice of not having sex when she is fertile.

Since it was asked, the reason the Catholics endorse natural family planning is because it is not disordered. That is, the artificial use of contraception perverts the sexual union of a man and a woman seeking to have the pleasure of the act without the possible consequences God ordained for the act. Foregoing sex when a woman is fertile is not necessarily disordered, though it can be, if used selfishly.

Also, can anyone find a church father who endorsed artificial contraception? Every statement I've seen from the early church on the matter condemned it.

[43. Irene M. said the following at 5:52 PM on May 3:]

43

Mandhi,

You make some great points, but I would like to clarify some your points on Catholic discipline/doctrine.

//This business that every act of sexual intercourse should be "open" to procreation//

Sexual intercourse should be "open to procreation" in that men and women should not *artificially* deny the pro-creative aspects of sex. Sex between infertile married couples or during non-fertile periods is not an issue because it is a barrier created by God and not by people trying to assume God's authority over creation. The point is not to have as many children as possible, but to respect God's will and to mimic Christ's love by discerning and accepting the vocation that the couple has been given. To say that Catholics do not value sex for its own sake or those who cannot have children is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

//The Roman Church also lives out this diminished view of sex in another of its innovations, celibate priesthood as the norm.//

First, celibacy is a discipline that is asked of most *Latin rite* priests, not a doctrine. It's not that sex is bad, but that disobedience to the Church authorities, who have asked that certain men to voluntarily and fully devote themselves to the Church by not having a family, is bad. Also, married men can and do become priests, but the requirements are different between the various rites (although, no rite completely bans married men from becoming priests).

//Consenual sex between a husband and wife is holy. Period.//

You are right and all Catholics would agree with you. However, the voluntary celibacy of some does not detract from the holiness of consentual marital sex. Are you by any chance Eastern or Oriental Orthodox? If so, do you believe that the Patriarchs' refusal to allow married priests to become bishops means that the Orthodox Church does not value marital sex?

Again, you make some great points and I am glad that you drew the distinction between abortificant and non-abortificant birth control, but please be more careful when speaking about another denominations beliefs and practices.

[44. Eliana said the following at 7:02 PM on May 3:]

44

Nikki,

Take a look at the resources people are mentioning. That should answer your questions about what makes contraception wrong but Natural Family Planning okay. And just to reiterate what's already been said, people are confusing the rhythm method with Natural Family Planning and saying both are ineffective. Natural Family Planning is much more effective. When the Catholic Church say that contraception is a grave sin, that does not mean you do not plan at all, or that you have as many children as possible indiscriminately.

Just to add the the good resources listed here, check the website of the Couple to Couple League:
http://www.ccli.org

[45. Eliana said the following at 7:10 PM on May 3:]

45

Mandi, you said"
"However, you'll hafta take a number because I seem to be outnumbered on the forum right now in terms of basing my objections to the teachings of the Roman Church on the supremacy of God's Word and sound explanations of it from the earliest centuries of Christianity based on Apostolic Teaching."

Well, here are some statements from Church Fathers. Do they sound like they support contraception?

Lactantius

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

Hippolytus

"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Augustine
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

These and more quotes of church fathers can be found at Catholic.com in their library.

[46. Jacob said the following at 7:39 PM on May 3:]

46

Throughout the history of the Church, birth control has been viewed as wrong (or at least improper) up until very recently when Protestants started using it, and we somehow thing that we are the "normal" ones?

I'm Reformed, which puts me at odds with Roman Catholic teachings more than most Evangelicals, but on this matter, I truly believe Rome has upheld the truth and that most protestants have bought into the "Burger King" lie: "Have It your way."

Now, the standard response to this debate is for people to point out their special circumstances and use it to try to justify their opposition to the general rule. I acknowledge that there are some people who have serious medical problems and are unable to have children, however, these couples do not consitute the vast majority of married Christians.

Frankly, who's silly idea was it that we can separate marriage, sex and family from one another? It's a package deal and unless you're willing to deal with the responsibilities that come with all three, you're not ready for even one of them.

Again, people with special circumstances usually speak up here too, and I acknowledge their situation, but that does not excuse the vast majority of Christian couples.

Church history, Protestant and Catholic, stands against birth control and we somehow think that we are somehow superior in our insights and understanding of the situation? We think we're normal? We think we're ok?

I disagree.

[47. Phoebe said the following at 8:37 PM on May 3:]

47

Wow, it's cool to hear so many pro-openness voices on this thread!

I would like to point out in reference to a statement by Marci, who says some of her friends got pregnant while trying to use rhythm method. I'm sorry, but NFP is totally different than the rhythm method. It charts the body's temperature and physical signs to tell when fertile or not.

It is very, very accurate when correctly followed.

[48. Becky F. said the following at 9:20 PM on May 3:]

48

Of course we'll all be united in heaven! We'll be in the presense of God and will no longer be sinful, so we won't have any inclinations to go different directions with our opinions. :)

[49. Becky F. said the following at 9:36 PM on May 3:]

49

So, if I'm understanding some of these comments correctly, sex with some form of birth control is not real sex. Or at least not the "one flesh", uniting, Biblical kind... ? If people leave the possibility of procreation open they are having real, Biblical sex. The exception was made for those who are beyond their fertile years, so I suppose the exception would be made for a pregnant woman also?

Sex is sex regardless. No, it's not just the physical act of sexual intercourse, but blocking sperm from ovums during sexual intercourse doesn't make it any less sex.

Onan's sin was that he did not follow the OT ceremonial law that a man would provide an heir for his brother's widow to carry on his name (see Deuteronomy 25 for the law, and see Genesis 38 for the story of Onan, Tamar, and Judah).

[50. Dustin said the following at 11:00 PM on May 3:]

50

In response to Zeph-

While I believe the basic argument that good families are good for society, I really question the motive of "if we have more kids we can have a more conservative society". Why should we concern ourselves with outcome if the action is right? Maybe more kids would lead to more crime. That certainly is the argument made by the authors of "Freakanomics". They argue that abortion has helped reduce crime. After all, it's the poor who commit crimes; abortion is highest amongst impoverished minorities (especially the black population). Less people equals less crime.

People should have children for many reasons. The outcome of a good society is indeed a possible benefit, but let's not use it as a justification. God did not make us because he needs us. We should not make children because we need them. We should make love, and making love makes children.

[51. KathleenM12 said the following at 11:55 PM on May 3:]

51

Irene M writes: "Sexual intercourse should be "open to procreation" in that men and women should not *artificially* deny the pro-creative aspects of sex."

This seems to be akin to saying that we should not use toothpaste because it *artificially* denies the natural decaying process that God designed for the teeth.

Frankly, I fail to see how using condoms, or spermicides or IUDs or pills are any more "artificial" than using basal thermometers and mucous membrane charts to schedule abstinence practices -- all these methods are designed to avoid pregnancy, and a thermometer is certainly no less artificial than a piece of latex.

"Sex between infertile married couples or during non-fertile periods is not an issue because it is a barrier created by God and not by people trying to assume God's authority over creation."

If infertility is a barrier created by God, then so are all other afflictions. This would mean that we should refrain from treating or curing God-created diseases, nor should we treat infertility with fertility treatments, because that would be "assuming God's authority over his creation".

Somehow, the idea of blaming God for infertility or cancer or luekemia seems rather absurd; those things are biological afflictions that can be treated, not curses from God that should be endured as his "punishment".

[52. Marci said the following at 8:21 AM on May 4:]

52

Hey All!

A question on Roman Catholic teachings: is the Catholic church united in how they teach about contraception/sex? I'm not Catholic, but I was wondering if perhaps some of the disputes on doctrine are the result of certain teachings differing between indivdual churches, or perhaps different types of Catholicism (this latter comment comes because someone told me that there is a kind of continum ranging from 'conservative' Catholics to more 'liberal' Catholics, liberal being Catholics who hold some pentecostal beliefs, amongst other things...yes? No?) Thoughts here would be welcome.

For instance, I am pentecostal, and I know that within the pentecostal denomination, teachings on these matters vary widely based on who is preaching. There's the PAOC, but also the Pentecostal Holiness (and there may be others) and even between these distinct branches of pentecostalism, there is QUITE a difference...so I was wondering if some/all of these factors may be at work here...

Responses welcome!

Blessing to All!

[53. Mandi said the following at 9:22 AM on May 4:]

53

Jeffrey Whiting, Rachel, Kate, Heather, Lucy, IreneM....

...and anyone else I might have missed in there who was taking issue with my characterization of the stand on contraception, and marital sex in general, of the Church of Rome, here goes.

I’d prefer to divide my comments in response to yours in two parts, not just because I’ve got many things to do. It would make the response easier on the eyes (there were many of you and one of me), and would untangle some separate, but related, issues.

I think we agree that children are a blessing from the Lord and should be seen in that Scriptural light. I suspect we also agree that the “multiplying” parts of the Genesis blessings in 1:22 and 1:28 are not fulfilled by the “two in, two out” mantra of many population control zealots. We’ve got the plummeting birth rates in “developed” countries as proof. Steve’s original post addresses this, and the alarm of the “progressive” Philip Longman is well-placed. (Of course people make their personal choices to leave God’s Way when they grow up or continue in it, but the Bible still insists that we what we teach our children will stay with them (Prov. 22:6) and that foundations are very, very important (Matt. 7: 24-25, Luke 6: 47-49).)

We also agree that life begins at fertilization, and that human interference after fertilization is wrong. So, drugs or objects that interfere with an embryo’s ability to attach to the lining of the womb are wrong.

We also agree that God provides. His power, wisdom, abundance and love cannot be truly known or measured by us. When we reduce children strictly to how expensive they are on our pocketbook and energies without leaving any room for God’s provision of resources and wisdom, we err indeed.

We also agree, to a point, about the *consequences* of widespread availability and use of contraceptives amongst the *unmarried*.

I think the final thing I’ll list under what we agree about is that sex is only to be had between a husband and a wife.

Not much else I think we agree about. I reject what you’re saying based on Scripture, universally recognized historical Church leaders who interpreted it, and from what I learned about what your Church teaches on these issues having spent 15 years of my life going to your schools (and from Vatican sources themselves). More on that in a bit.

[54. Jacob said the following at 10:42 AM on May 4:]

54

"This seems to be akin to saying that we should not use toothpaste because it *artificially* denies the natural decaying process that God designed for the teeth."

Tooth decay is a result of living in a fallen world. Children are not.

Other objectors think that not using contraceptives implies that one should not seek medical treatment. A deeper understanding of the issue will reveal that in medical treatments, one is seeking to restore, correct or attenuate something gone wrong. Pregnancy is a natural function, not something that has gone wrong. Thus, the analogy falls apart.

Again, virtually all Chrsitians throughout the ages have believed that birth control is wrong, and we think we're "normal" for believing it's ok. Sounds awefully arrogant to me...

[55. Mandi said the following at 11:30 AM on May 4:]

55

Eliania,

I think I’ll respond to this quickly before I get to responding to the bulk of the other questions/comments to my statements because this won’t take as much time, and I’m working outside home today.

Re: quoting “Church Fathers”

Great caution here. While it’s always more instructive to examine the writings and practices describing the Early Church by those living at that time, not everyone who wrote in ancient times can, or is, universally recognized as a “Church Father”. Tertullian and Origen immediately come to mind, but there are others too. Often these leaders or theologians were right about many things but their teachings (or practices, as in the case of Origen who castrated himself) were wrong about others. The “pre-denominational” unified Church did not consider such men to be “Church Fathers” because *all* of their teachings did not square with Scripture. We must do the same. If someone writes something that goes against what God’s Word says or presumes to add to it ideas that go against Biblical teaching as a whole on a subject, we should be very careful to rely upon that writing, whether ancient or modern (a la the post about John Piper earlier this week).

I confess that I do not know whether Lactantius is considered a universally recognized “Church Father”, or just one adopted by the Church of Rome. However, the latter part of the quote you cite is the crux of my dispute with your Church’s teachings: the idea that sex is for procreation only (as Lactantius here claims), or even primarily, as other “Fathers” claim. The authority of Scripture does not support your Church’s claim. I’ll really have to get to that in my further answer to the others. (Gosh, I thought this would be “quick” to answer.)

Epiphanius of Salamis is not, in this quote, identifying whether those engaging in “genital acts” are married or not (I shudder, if he is referring to the married by such a description). He then goes on to reiterate this Roman idea that procreation is paramount (“not in order to produce offspring”). He describes these acts as lustful. Again, I submit that married and unmarried acts should be described separately. More on that later.

Hippolytus’ quote refers to “drugs of sterility” (and abortion, by expulsion of a fetus). With great respect, this does nothing to support your view about contraception, which is very different from “sterility”.

Augustine. Ah, Augustine. He’s another one to be careful about, both in reference to him as a “Church Father” (no consensus there with anyone), and most especially in what he says about marriage, sex, and procreation because what he says not only cannot be found in Scripture, it opposes what God’s Word says about those topics. Unfortunately, his teachings are what the Church of Rome has mainly based its own teachings on about these subjects. (That is sad because as people trying to spread the Gospel, we shouldn’t be appealing to the writings of people whose ideas go against what the Scriptures teach to do so.) But much more on that later.

I notice that you have not mentioned two ancient Christian elders and writers whose writings about these subjects are considered classical amongst Christians across lands and cultures: John Chrysostom and Athanasius. (Please, before you use the oft-quoted passage of Chrysostom about abortion, be mindful that he addresses “sterility” and abortion, not “contraception”. In fact, if you read “On Marriage and Family Life” in which he thoroughly explains the Apostle Paul’s writings about marriage, it is clear that the Bible says that companionship/love leading to the holiness of the couple is the primary purpose of marriage, with procreation being a natural and secondary outcome of that.)

I thought this would be “quick” to answer…really gotta get back to work now (I didn’t eat my lunch on my lunch and I’m hungry!).

[56. EmmaLee said the following at 11:36 AM on May 4:]

56

Becky F.
"Sex is sex regardless. No, it's not just the physical act of sexual intercourse, but blocking sperm from ovums during sexual intercourse doesn't make it any less sex."

KathleenM12
"Frankly, I fail to see how using condoms, or spermicides or IUDs or pills are any more "artificial" than using basal thermometers and mucous membrane charts to schedule abstinence practices -- all these methods are designed to avoid pregnancy, and a thermometer is certainly no less artificial than a piece of latex."

Speaking from experience, there is a huge difference between having sex with condoms, the pill, and without contraception. My husband and I have been together in all 3 manners and there is an infinite difference when nothing is keeping your bodies apart. Condoms physically separate the man and the woman. The only time we used a condom I found myself crying because the act felt so distant and cold compared to how God intended it to be. The first time we came together after I stopped using the pill there was an incredible emotional connection that I had never felt until then, that I continue to feel now.
I realize some people may have had different experiences, but to those speaking only from theory and not from experience, please realize that the physical aspect of sex is only side of it. Placing barriers between yourself and your spouse will alter the emotional and spiritual aspects of the act.

[57. Marci said the following at 12:37 PM on May 4:]

57

EmmaLee,

Thanks for being brave and sharing your experiences. I honestly never considered that using the pill or any other form of contraception could cause such an emotional difference (I never thought I would really affect the experience at all), so it's safe to say you have given me *much* food for thought in regards to what I'll do when I marry.

Blessings to you!

[58. knit_tgz said the following at 1:00 PM on May 4:]

58

Liz: the "rhythm method" is outdated. Recently (in January) a paper from a German medical team was published in a ginecology scientific journal on a study on the efficiency of the sympto-thermal method (one of the modern methods of NFP). The couples who followed the rules carefully to avoid pregnancy had pregnancy rates of less than 1% (similar to the pill); but better, the couples who knowingly had sex on fertile time sometimes still had a low pregnancy rate (around 7%, if I recall). You can find the abstract (free) here: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dem003v1
and if you are at a University maybe you can see the whole paper.

[59. Marci said the following at 2:06 PM on May 4:]

59

OOPS!

Phoebe, you raise a good point about the differences between Natural Family Planning and the rythum method (which I didn't know about). I appologize: had I read DrLiz's comments more carefully, I would have noticed that she clearly made a distinction between the two, which in my too hasty reading, I overlooked.

I appologize!

However, this was a great insight, because after looking at the websites provided and getting information on Natural Family Planning, I'm wondering why on earth this is the first time I'm hearing of it! I'm still a little worried about it's effectiveness (a carryover from my fears about the rythum method, I think, which is different), but it sounds like it would resolve my concerns about other forms of contreception...

I'm going to try and find some Christian resources in Toronto that will help me learn more about how it all works; if it's really as effective as claimed (I'm skeptical about the whole 'Ecco breastfeeding thing, to be honest, but the part about a womans body temperature seems reasonable), it would be an answer to prayer.

So thanks for all the info!

Blessings to you all!

[60. Blair said the following at 3:27 PM on May 4:]

60

I am still forming my beliefs on birth control. I know I am against any form of birth control that could abort a fertilized egg (or not allow it to implant). One of the promblems I have with some supporters of birth control is that they see children as a consequence not as a blessing.

[61. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:06 AM on May 5:]

61

Wow, we got into a full-blown discussion on birth control (interesting it's called "birth" control when perhaps more accurately it should be called "pregnancy" control as abortion would then be considered "birth" control).

A few things:

- To answer Marci's question, the Roman Catholic church is clearly against any type of "physical" birth control. By that I mean the Pill, Condems, IEDs, etc. Anything more than Natural Family Planning (NFP), rhythm method, or basically anything in which you put something on or into your body is sin.

- Some Christians, even non-Catholics are opposed to the Pill for various reasons.

- The NFP is pretty reliable IF FOLLOWED CORRECTLY. This of course is the big 'if'. One instance of having sex during the wrong time could make it completely ineffective. And it does require some effort to determine a woman's cycle (temperature and mucus production in the vaginal area [sorry if that was too much info]).

- I would be very careful before giving arguments for/against contraception. For example, the Catholic argument of "you might be stopping the production of a new life by using a condem" is inconsistent. You MIGHT be doing a lot of wrong things with certain actions (such as entering a just war. You might kill innocent civilians. Does that mean the war itself shouldn't be engaged?). People against the Pill have a more legitimate argument saying that sometimes an egg is destroyed after fertilization thus you are in a way "killing" a new life.

- Finally in regards to whether intentionally not having children in marriage or intentionally having fewer is "sin" again I'll state I'm wary of putting the 'S' label on something that isn't explicit in the Bible. But I do agree that it is very sad that so many try to separate marriage from parenthood. Make no mistake. Raising children is hard work and there are MANY sacrifices to be made. But I know a lot more parents who said "it was definitely worth it" than those who say "I wish I never had children".

Ok, I'm still single and yet I know probably a lot more than I should about birth control and reproductive medicine. Something's amiss here.

[62. Eliana said the following at 3:09 PM on May 5:]

62

Well, Becky, thanks for responding.

As concerns Church fathers, well, if you won't accept certain Church fathers, then what can I say? Catholics see the Church as a continuum, from the earliest apsotles to know, and we can trace back over the centuries, the faith being handed on from one bishop to the next. The Church has developed her doctrine on the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. Before, the procretive aspect was the main one emphasized, whereas now both the unitive and procreative aspects as emphasized.

Concerning certain Church fathers, the Church does not say that every word every one said is true. What she has done is as a body, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has discerned which teachings are true and that the faithful should follow. And for 1900 years, contraception was considered to be a sin by all Christians, until Protestants broke away from that.

You say that when Hippolytus condems drugs of sterility, he is not condemning contraceptives. But what are contraceptives but drugs taken with the purpose to temporarily sterilize? If he's not referring to contraceptives, what is he referring to?

Re: the quote of Chrysostom, here's what he says:
"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility, where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

What do you say he means if not contraceptives? "Something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation."
Only contraceptives prevent formation.

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Again, what else prevents the beginning of life? Abortion kills a life already begun. Contraceptives prevent life from beginning.

But can you show me any Church fathers who advocated or permitted contraception? Where does the Bible say contraception is okay?

[63. Eliana said the following at 3:15 PM on May 5:]

63

Something very interesting which seems like it could be a prediction of contraception is Luke 23:29. But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 “For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed."

Jesus doesn't sound happy about the infertile future, does He?

Also, Mandi, you say that contraception is Biblical. Why then does the whole Bible praise the fruitfulness of a woman so many times?

[64. Eliana said the following at 3:42 PM on May 5:]

64

I just remembered that there are two crucial points that need to be mentioned. Some people ask what's the difference between NFP and contraception, if you're using both to not conceive. One important difference is that NFP is not supposed to be used with a contraceptive attitude, or it can also become sinful. So if a couple used NFP their whole marraige to avoid conception, and did not have a serious reason to do so, that would also be wrong. So just because you use NFP, doesn't mean you are supposed to be closed off to all life.

Someone was asking about whether there are different Catholic teachings. No, there are not. The Catholic Church has the magisterium which formulates doctrines. You can learn the official teachings of the Church by picking up a copy of the Catechism. Many Catholics nowadays disobey the teachings of the church or ignore them--these are the so-called liberal Catholics. But they do not have teaching authority. There are sometimes theologians or priests who might disobey and preach against the Church's teachings. But they are not authorized to define new doctrines, and so when they preach against the official teachings of the bishops in communion with the pope, they are preaching heresy.

So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism.

[65. Mandi said the following at 7:43 PM on May 5:]

65

Jeffrey Whiting, Rachel, Kate, Heather, Lucy, IreneM, Elania, (and anyone else I missed who took issue with my Biblical defence of the idea that not every act of sexual intercourse between the husband and wife must be "open" to procreation)....you might need a cup of coffee or something... :)

You've taken issue with my statement that the logical conclusion of your Church's teachings on openness in sex is that knowingly making love during periods of infertility is sinful.

I won't bother using what I was taught in your schools, by curriculum approved by your bishops, as proof.

I'll use your own Vatican's documents, and some of the ones you yourselves have linked me to.

This is what your Catechism says about "lust":

"2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."

What does the Bible say about lust?

Well, it's not talking about it in the context of marriage. Rather, the word "lust" is grouped with sexual immorality in general (e.g., 1 Thess 4: 3-5), and harlotry (Prov. 6:24-26, Jer. 13: 26-27, Ez. 23:5), fornication and adultery (Matt 5:28), and homosexuality and sodomy (Rom 1: 27) specifically. Other perverted forms of sexuality, bestiality, and incest, are clearly and similarly condemned and punished by God (Ex. 22:19, Lev. 20: 11, 12, 14-16 as but a few examples). Even greed for money is lumped in with "lust" (1 Tim. 6: 8-10). But not sex between a husband and wife.

When the Bible speaks of "sexual immorality", it speaks at great length, in great detail. It does not list "sexual pleasure… when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" in the context of marriage as immoral, or "morally disordered" to use the Vatican's words.

In fact, in 1 Cor. 6, the Apostle Paul talks of "flee[ing] sexual immorality", and he defines it specifically as sex outside of marriage.

That is why the Early Church insisted that marriage be honoured as a "mystery", or "sacrament", and the Church of Rome has thankfully mostly kept that practice alive (to answer your question, Lucy.

Some of the resources you led me to as showing, as Heather put it, "very well-reasoned explanation of the Catholic teaching on the unitive and procreative nature of sex" show the crux of the matter.

Your Church's teachings are based on the writings of Augustine (and following in his path, Thomas Aquinas), not the Word of God or the Apostolic Tradition which faithfully read it (like John Chrysostom or Athanasius), not read into it things that aren't there or in opposition to it.

Eliana quoted one of the passages by Augustine used by the Roman Church as a basis for this teaching. I'll paste it here for ease of reference:

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

This passage is breathtaking in its audacity to defy and contradict God's Word in describing marriage and lust. It truly makes me want to cry to see someone speak of the Scriptures thus.

Heb. 13:4 is absolutely CLEAR about the purity and holiness of the sexual relationship between a husband and his wife: " Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Notice the Bible CLEARLY distinguishes between sex between married and unmarried folk: one is honourable and undefiled, the other will bring down the judgment of God.

Consider too, that this passage clearly shows that judgment will come upon fornicators and adulterers whose sexual acts are nonetheless "open" to procreation, because the honour and defilement come from the marital status, or lack thereof, of the participants – not the "openness" to procreation.

If it were as you say, the Apostle, not one to mince his words, would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that "openness" to procreation in every act of marital intercourse was necessary for honour and undefilement. But He did not.

In direction violation of the spirit and letter of God's Word, Augustine uses words like "lust", "lustful cruelty", "cruel lust", "shame", "not married", "seduction", "harlot of her husband", and "adulterer with his own wife" when describing a husband and wife making love.

How DARE he use such language –- when God's Word has very different things to say about this? How dare he?!?

Who IS he to attribute the word "lust" and to acts that the Scriptures have only ever used in reference to harlotry, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality, and incest?

Who IS he to call that is good and honourable, evil? God's Word has this to say about those who twist His precepts that way: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!" (Is. 5: 20-21)

I repeat: how dare he?

And yet, your Church bases its teachings on these issues on his writing.

Honestly, I'm so mad write now, writing this, I need to leave it for a while and finish my defence of the Biblical teaching of the holiness of consensual sex between a husband and wife, at whatever time of the month and in whatever season of life. You've made many unbiblical assumptions about the "nature" of sex and marriage, but I have - have to -- walk away from this now after poring over those scandalous passages about lust from the Catechism and Augstine.

God bless you. (Are you on your second cup of coffee yet? Sorry for the length. So many of you, one of me. Quite the topic.)

[66. Phoebe said the following at 9:31 PM on May 5:]

66

Bravo, Marci! I'm glad you're really thinking through this.

Here are several quotes from a book by John Kippley, "Sex and the Marriage Covenant, a Basis for Morality". It is published by the Couple to Couple League, which is the Catholic family organization dedicated to promoting Natural Family Planning.

"What makes a couple married?
A man and woman marry when they publicly promise to love each other without reservation as long as they both live. The term "love" here has nothing to do with great emotional feelings; it means caring love and fidelity even under the most trying circumstances, for better and for worse. In essence, the man and the woman make a total unreserved gift of self to each other for life, and that's what makes them husband and wife. To put it in biblical terms, they willingly enter God's covenant of marriage by making a permanent gift of self to each other."

"The purpose and purposes of marriage: The overriding purpose of marriage is the mutual holiness of husband and wife....Within the context of growth in holiness, the Second Vatican Council taught about two other purposes of marriage--
1)the development of their married love and
2) the procreation and education of children."

"What is the role of sex within marriage?
.. to foster the purposes of marriage itself-- the development of the marriage bond and the procreation and education of children. It is to be a symbol of the mutual commitment of the spouses, a renewal of their marriage covenant, at least implicity."

[note, 'pleasure' is not the Purpose of sex, though it certainly is a great part of the joy of the union. --according to what I've learned from my mother.]

"How is contraceptive behavior to be evaluated in terms of the marriage covenant?
In making the commitment of marriage, the couple give themselves to each other for better and for worse without reservation. Sexual intercourse becomes the symbol of that inital unreserved gift of self to the other, a gift that must be carried out in the day to day living of their marriage. However, the essence of contraceptive behavior is that it is sex with serious reservation [sentence emphasized in text]. The symbol of total self-giving is contradicted by contraception, and, de facto, there is lacking the unreserved gift of self."

EmmaLee's testimony, and that of my mother, state that there IS a difference between sex w/ contraception and sex without. I personally believe that this is not a black-and-white issue, but I do belive that there is good and bad, right and wrong involved. I hope, by God's grace to marry a man who shares my conviction. If ever I enter a 'courting' relationship, this issue will be one of the very top things I'll have to discuss. After being exposed to the Catholic teachings about joyous mutual self-giving, I can't imagine sex with any contraception. It totally contradicts the holy idea I have of sex.

One last thought-- if marriage, and sex, is a divine analogy given to us by God of our relationship with Christ, what symbol does sex have in that analogy? Joyous, unreserved, life-giving, mutual self-giving love!!! He gave his life and love, we return with ours. We give him ALL of our life and love, or else it is not true worship!

[67. Phoebe said the following at 9:47 PM on May 5:]

67

Marci, you asked if Catholic teaching is united on this. The answer is that the Vatican is consistent, but that Catholics, even some priests, do not obey Vatican teaching on this. Some Catholics-in-name even support abortion! (i.e. John Kerry)

btw, I am not Catholic -- and you have to be discerning about some of the teachings. I attend an Evangelical Free church, where most of the married people no doubt do practice contraception.
:(
Nevertheless, there are many loving parents in our congregation and very good family support. I'm blessed.

As for the sin of Onan-- what was given as law first? It may have been a cultural practice, but in Judah's time God had not yet made as law the principle that a man should produce offspring for his dead brother. Moses came long after Judah, Tamar, and Onan.

Kippely, in the book I mentioned above, says that "a close examination of the text shows that God condemned Onan for the specific action he performed, not for his anti-Levirate intentions. He notes that the translation 'he spilled his seed on the ground' fails to do justice to the Hebrew expression. The Hebrew verb /shichet/ never means to spill or waste. Rather it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related towards the ground, not against his brother. '...His perversion or corruption consists in his action itself, not precisely in the result and goal of his act. [quoting Biblical scholar Manuel Miguens]' "

[68. Hillary said the following at 12:44 AM on May 6:]

68

Perhaps in our focus on the hermeneutics of birth control we are missing the larger picture necessary to properly construct a theology of family. I am so glad that we are concerned about family sizes and bringing children into the world so that the body of Christ may flourish. Nonetheless, I am disturbed by the ways in which we have closed our definition of family. While this is not abnormal to our westernized mindset, it is unsettling that we as Christians, who have ourselves been adopted into God's family, would choose to focus this conversation almost exclusively on the children who can come directly from our wombs and arrive into a safe nuclear family.

Our religion is to care for the destitute. What statement could be made regarding life (and here I speak after Richard B. Hays) if 10,000 Christians brought forth a piece of legislation stating that they would adopt any child of any age, race, sex, disability, hardship rather than 10,000 signing a petition to end the over-the-counter sale of morning-after pills? What if we were to open our homes to children and not just our wombs? Surely our definition of family must be large enough to encompass our neighbor's fertility patterns and to bear the burdens of those facing the choice of abortion.

The conversation is above is often helpful, but if we fail to open this discussion to include a larger definition and understanding of family and fertility, I think we will be doing this talk a disservice.

[69. Ted Slater said the following at 9:16 AM on May 6:]

69

Eliana wrote, "... NFP is not supposed to be used with a contraceptive attitude, or it can also become sinful...."

Um. Is anyone else confused by this? It seems to me that the "end" of NFP is to prevent the conception of a child. NFP by its very nature goes against the spirit of 1 Cor. 7:1-5, and for the purpose of preventing pregnancy from taking place.

Under your conditions, then, I don't know how NFP can be anything but "sinful."

[70. Heather said the following at 3:19 PM on May 6:]

70

I'll respond to your question, Ted, and in part to Mandi. This is going to be a little long, so the shortest answer is that NFP is about understanding a woman's cycle. It can be used to achieve pregnancy quickly, not just to avoid it.

Primarily, the heart of Catholic teaching on having children and the spacing of births is a recognition that children are a blessing and should be welcomed as the fruit of marital love. Thus, married couples should always be willing to receive new life through the marital act, although we know that at some times the act will be naturally less fertile than at other times.

If a couple knows that they have serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy at this time, they should abstain. As others have said, everyone is not expected to have as many children as physically possible. We are, as Christians, called to be generous and sacrificial, and to put our faith in God (not worldly wisdom) regarding the size of our families. Only the individual couple can determine what may be grave reasons to avoid pregnancy, but by cooperating with God's design for our bodies, the presumption is always towards life!

The way NFP can be sinful has to do with the attitude of the heart--if a woman decides to avoid another pregnancy because she just got her figure back, or a couple wants to avoid the expense of another child to afford more material things--then they may be acting in a right way but with a wrong motive. This is one of the challenging things, in a good way, about avoiding contraceptives--the couple naturally desires to come together, and so they must revisit the question of whether God is calling them to have another child on a monthly basis! As many of Boundless's writers have said, it is easy to get caught up in a contraceptive lifestyle, and before you know it, the mosyt fertile years of your marriage may be gone.

So yes, Ted, it could be possible to practice NFP in a way that is contrary to that passage in Corinthians. Ideally, all married couples should simply come together in love and be open to any new life God brings. I know many couples whose learn NFP because they have been unable to achieve pregnancy, and I think it is great to learn more about the complex design of a woman's body. In some ways, NFP is a concession to the fact that we live in a fallen world--sometimes there is sickness, poor health, or other reasons that we cannot be as open to new life as we'd like to be. However, by practicing NFP, a couple is not changing the nature of their union, but only working within their bodies' God-given design. If they must abstain, it is a time to pray and perhaps ask for God's help so that they can be ready to receive more children.

As for Mandi, I'm sorry and surprised at your anger over what you've read. Augustine certainly uses the strongest language against those who have sterile sex, but I think you are reading these passages too uncharitably. The church fathers and Catholic teaching do not condemn sexual love between a husband and wife, and clearly the Bible does not, either. Ideally, there should be no unholy lust between a husband and wife, and their marital embrace should be the result of their love for each other, fertility and all.

Because of sin, we humans are often tempted to use each other as objects, either seeking sexual pleasure without welcoming the children that might be conceived, or in some cases, seeing the other person only as a means to having a child. In fact, to make love to one's wife only because you want a child, and not as an act of love towards her, is just as wrong as refusing to have children.

And Mandi, regarding the possibility of lust between a husband and wife, the question is whether they are truly coming together in love, or are simply viewing each other's bodies as objects for their own pleasure? This is maybe more clear in a case where a husband demands sex from a wife who is ill or tired. In that case, he is not honoring her as a person, but is only seeing her body as a means to meet his own need. Surely you agree that to demand sex without consideration for your spouse's health or other conditions is wrong? That is where lust can overriding love in a marriage. Even our laws now recognize this by holding that it is possible for rape to occur within a marriage, although that would be the extreme case. (and I'm not trying to imply that all men are predators towards their wives, so please don't take it that way!) Essentially, we humans have a tendency to use each other selfishly, in ways sexual or not, and just as one can view another lustfully as a sex object outside of marriage, the same can happen within marriage. Hopefully, it is much rarer in marriage, since the couple is continually practicing mutual love and respect for each other...

Sorry this is so long, and I hope it helps answer folks' questions!

[71. Leah said the following at 2:22 AM on May 7:]

71

Jeffrey- there is nothign wrong with birth control as long as we are responsible about it. Obviously, there are those who use it all the time and intend never to have children. That, arguably, could be called "wrong".

But honestly, I would say it's actually irresponsible not to use BC in certain situations. What about a couple who has twin babies and a toddler and really doesn't have the time, energy and resources for another baby at this point in time? Do they just not have sex until they can afford another child? Of course not! That would bring on ramifications for the couple's relationship. Birth control, in that context, is not being used to stop them from having a family- it is simply stopping them from procreating at that particular point in time. I see nothing unbiblical about that.

I don't see anythign in the bible that implies every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. Procreation is not the ONLY purpose of sex. Sex plays a huge role in a relationship, as I'm sure most married men will attest to. (And no, I'm not making jabs at the whole male preoccupation with sex :P I jsut know that it is true that sex plays a bigger role for guys than for women). I therefore think it would be wrong to deprive either partner of sex simply because you cannot afford to get pregnant.

[72. Phoebe said the following at 9:09 AM on May 7:]

72

Leah, please se Heather's comment above. After having twins would be a good time to follow NFP for a couple years. Heavy nursing would also naturally delay ovulation and the return of the menstrual cycle -- this is not true for all women, but it is true for many. (nursing has to be a constant for this to work)

Birth control is not necessary in a situation like this. By using NFP, the couple gives the woman's body a time to rest, while yet honoring the sacredness of sex and procreation.

Quote from Heather:
"This is one of the challenging things, in a good way, about avoiding contraceptives--the couple naturally desires to come together, and so they must, [on a monthly basis], revisit the question of whether God is calling them to have another child!"

Great point!

[73. xeres said the following at 9:29 AM on May 7:]

73

you go, hillary!! :)

[74. Mandi said the following at 10:36 AM on May 7:]

74

Heather,

I take serious issue with your Church's underlying assumptions that consensual sex between a husband and wife can be lustful simply because it is non-procreative, or not "open" to procreation.

Simply put, you're not relying on the Bible for such an assumption, but on the writings of Augustine and Thomas Aquanis. The link you sent me makes that very clear.

When you look at Genesis, you see that God made all the animals before He made Adam, some of them asexual, others not. All of them He called good. He then looked upon Adam's *loneliness* and said that "it is NOT GOOD for man to be ALONE". He then took great care in fashioning a companion, a helpmate for Adam. He doesn't even mention procreation in Genesis 2.

The fact is the Bible condemns sexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage, not within. I think my previous post cited many examples of that.

The fact is, your Church is operating on the assumption that because sex *can* result in procreation, that that is its primary purpose. Genesis shows that that's not true. In fact, the way God created us ("nature")shows that that's not true either. There are simply far more periods of infertility in a woman's life, than fertility: pregnancy, continuous nursing, old age, and...like 25 days out of every month in her child-bearing years. Surely God could not have designed something "primarily" for a purpose that cannot always be fulfilled, by His own design. Marital union and the pleasure of such union, can always be enjoyed (barring the spouse that cares little about the headache of the other and insists upon relations, as you point out).

The fact is the Bible positively affirms the holiness of sex between husband and wife -- and makes it clear that it's "honorable" and "undefiled", unlike fornication and adultery (which can be "open" to procreation).
______________________________________
That seems to be lost in your teachings, though. The Anscombe article you linked me to as showing in a well-reasoned manner the true teaching of your Church shows this clearly. Consider these examples of non-biblical innovation, to put it charitably:

"“But if sexual union can be deliberately and totally divorced from fertility, then we may wonder why sexual union has got to be married union. If the expression of love between the partners is the point, then it shouldn't be so narrowly confined.”

Um, because God said so. *Every* instance of "lust" in the Bible relates to sex between unmarried men and women, as my post on Saturday showed.

-------------------------------------
"On the other hand it is a familiar point that there is some grimness in Augustine's view of sex. He regards it as more corrupted by the fall than our other faculties. Intercourse for the sake of getting children is good but the need for sexual intercourse otherwise, he thought, is an infirmity. However, "husband and wife" (I quote) "owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children - which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality - but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another's weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse."

Who is he to start making things up along the way like this about the primary purpose of sex, and the holiness of sex between spouses?? This goes against what the Bible says about each of these. Period. His writing shouldn't be given any weight on these topics for that reason.

What's worse is that in the next paragraph she describes such a view as "holding up an ideal". Nonsense. Something that contradicts the Bible's teachings -- and the conclusions we can infer from God's own creation -- cannot be "ideal". They're just wrong. These things are in fact what contradict "nature", not the clear Biblical passages that state the contrary.
-------------------------------------

On seeking sex with a spouse for pleasure -- something that God created -- your expert, quoting Augustine, says there's "at least venial sin" there.

Something that *GOD* created for husbands and wives to enjoy as a foretaste of unity with Him in Heaven, is a bit sinful, but is something "weak" people suffer the desire for?!? Again, how do you dare call that which is good, evil...even a little bit?!?
--------------------------------------

"St Thomas follows St Augustine and all other traditional teachers in holding that intercourse sought out of lust, only for the sake of pleasure, is sin, though it is venial if the intemperance isn't great, and in type this is the least of the sins against chastity."

Sorry, but that's just accurate, at many levels.

Biblically, that's not how "lust" is defined.

"[A]ll other traditional fathers"...this is flat-out wrong because the two ancient authorities on explaining the Pauline epistles about marriage and sex, Athanasius and John Chrysostom, use the Bible as their authority for teachings, and they come to opposite conclusions.

In fact, John Chrysostom wrote an entire BOOK ("On Marriage and Family Life") about the subject in which he *clearly* explains from the Bible how marriage is for the *holiness* of the couple, and that marriage is *primarily* for the love and companionship that mirror God's love to us, and only secondarily for procreation. He is crystal-clear about that. (That's why, Eliania, your quote from John Chrysostom cannot hold the meaning you wish it to hold, outside of surgical abortion and permanent sterility.) He defines "chastity" as the Bible does -- lack of fornication and adultery, not as Augustine or Thomas Aquinas do. He specifically warns against having too many periods of abstinence (which would happen if we were to always be "open" to procreation, given all the periods of infertility in our lives).

John Chrysostom stands apart from the people your Church relies on for ancient wisdom about how the Early Church lived out a life in Christ and followed God's Word because he doesn't add or subtract from the Bible, as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas do.
--------------------------------------

As final proof that these men whose words your Church relies upon for its teachings, have unbiblical ideas, consider this passage from the article you linked me to:

"His second contribution was his definition of the "sin against nature". This phrase relates to deviant acts, such as sodomy and bestiality. He defined this type of sin as a sexual act of such a kind as to be intrinsically unfit for generation. This definition has been colossally important. It was, indeed, perfectly in line with St. Augustine's reference to copulating in a "base" way so as not to procreate.."

Unbelievable audacity. Calling what God has made and rendered "honourable" and "undefiled" as akin to *bestiality* and *sodomy*.

Truly breathtaking in its defiance of Scripture on what is -- and is not -- "sexual immorality".

Just stunning in its audacity.

But then, this is just one example of many of how the Roman Church has defied or ignored Scripture and the universally recgonized Early Church Fathers who upheld it. But that's a story for another day.

[75. Phoebe said the following at 11:11 AM on May 7:]

75

Mandi, I certainly agree that Augustine goes beyond the Bible. However, you seem to be saying that seeking sex within marriage but only for pleasure is lawful. I think that you may not be getting the point. Yes, a married couple can anticipate and enjoy the pleasure of sex, but it should not be by any means the primary 'reason' they have sex. Their intent in having sex should be an expression of love and self-giving. (please see the Kippeley quotes above) They don't 'just' want to have pleasure; they want to build each other and their marriage up.

"St Thomas follows St Augustine and all other traditional teachers in holding that intercourse sought out of lust, only for the sake of pleasure, is sin, though it is venial if the intemperance isn't great, and in type this is the least of the sins against chastity."

Only for the sake of pleasure ---
only for the sake of a sexual high ---................

not for the sake of rejoicing together in each other's bodies, but for the sake of giving one's own body gratification..............
I'm sure you would agree this kind of sex would be wrong.

Remember, not everything sexual is lawful between a man and a wife! Certain deviant sexual practices dishonor God's design for our bodies.

Please Mandi, try to understand why we believe non-contraception is a BEAUTIFUL way of life.

Love in Christ.

[76. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:12 PM on May 7:]

76

Regarding Augustine (et al),

There is nothing even hinting in the Bible that married couples who cannot produce children should stop having sex. This would include those who have had surgery (e.g. removing parts due to cancer), those who are past menopause, etc.

Unfortunately, some (noting that I still believe it's a small minority) past and current Roman Catholic leaders believe that sex without any possibility or intention for children is sin. There was even one bishop (name escapes me) who said that it is "impossible" to separate sexual pleasure from sin regardless of circumstance. So although it may be that Augustine and others did not intend the words to be overcritical of marital sex, it does seem that way.

Lust in my opinion is simply something good (sexual pleasure) which has been perverted. In the eloquent words of C.S. Lewis from The Screwtape Letters:

"Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's (God's) ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return—that is what really gladdens our Father's heart. And the troughs are the time for beginning the process."

Is it possible to have "lust" in a marriage relationship then? Yes, if for example, you are bent on just getting what you want without any consideration at all for what your spouse may want I believe that is wrong.

Again, I am hesitent to label any form of birth control as sin as well as giving quotas for the number of children a couple ought to have.

[77. Erica said the following at 1:31 PM on May 7:]

77

In the article it mentioned that Conservative Christians will be able to pass their family values to their children who will in turn have large families. It might not happen that way, as children has a mind of their own and makes their own decision. Some will accept their parents’ teachings and others will not. Hugh Hefner the founder of Playboy Magazine grew up in Midwestern Methodist family. So parents can grew up the children to love and worship God and follow his principles and pray that when they come of age they will continue in the Christian faith.

Having a lot of children may not encourage your children to do the same. If the child see his mother giving birth every year and is unable to care for herself or her children, it might not encourage the child follow her example. Also, if the mother is very sick during her pregnancy, her children will not feel positive about pregnancy. Contraceptives enable such a woman to have sex without fear of becoming pregnancy. Some women have Kidney Problem, High Blood Pressure Diabetics and need Bed Rest for months when pregnant. Women who have C- Section are not encouraged to have more than two children. The Surgical Cut is opened with each succeeding pregnancy. In the Czech Republic a woman is sterilized after two C-Sections. When my Sister-in-Law is pregnant she has to spend the whole day in bed and is unable to care for family. She cannot eat food and often spent time in hospital getting IV Fluid for food. These women cannot have large family and have to guard against frequent pregnancies.

Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation and Birth Control Pill mentioned one of things that motivate her was that her mother has 18 children of which 11 survived infancy. Her mother Anne Purcell Higgins a devoted Roman Catholic died after giving birth to her 11th child from TB and Cervical Cancer. Also, she mentioned that the women in her neighbourhood has a lot of children. A fact she did not like.

Mandi thank you provide us with reasons why Catholics does not use Birth Control. I disagreed with the Catholic teaching on Sex. I believe if the Fathers were not celibacy they would not be tempted to participate in those sexual abuse that rock the church. I never heard such scandal rock any Protestant denomination. The Breast Feeding don’t work with every woman. Once your period return you have to use another BC apart from Breastfeeding. Even if you see your period only once. I know a girl whose period returned two months after the birth of her child. She got pregnant twice in year because she heard you cannot get pregnant when nursing.

[78. André said the following at 3:01 PM on May 7:]

78

"So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism."

... and I always thought that the way to know the truth was to read the Bible and to listen to what God has to say...

I'm glad I must listen only to what God says about sex, through His word. I'd mostly be doomed if I'd guide my actions concerning sex by comments people write on Boundless' blog.

[79. Eliana said the following at 3:21 PM on May 7:]

79

Mandi,

You said:
Something that *GOD* created for husbands and wives to enjoy as a foretaste of unity with Him in Heaven, is a bit sinful, but is something "weak" people suffer the desire for?!? Again, how do you dare call that which is good, evil...even a little bit?!?

But contraceptive sex contradicts that unity with God which sex is meant to symbolize. As someone else mentioned, union with God should involve total self-giving, with nothing held back. But contraceptive sex deliberately holds back a crucial part of self, the life-giving aspect.

You mention how much of married life involves periods of infertility due to pregnancy, nursing, monthly cycle, an menopause. But that actually reinforces the point we are trying to make. When you consider all that, the window of fertility in a marriage is much smaller than it would seem at first. Therefore, doesn't it make sense that God wants us to put those fertile years at his service. He did not design us so that we would always be able to have babies. He has designed us so married couples can come together many times without even having to consider whether they will become pregnant, since much of a woman's life, she could be infertile.

Let's consider for a moment, a woman's life fertility timetable. She spends the first twelve years of her life infertile. Next, she is fertile, but if she is living chastely, she will not even to have to worry about fertility vs. infertility until she is married. Let's say she get's married at 25, the average age of marriage for a woman today. She will then have approximately 27 years of fertility left, unless she is already infertile. During those 27 years, she is infertile for approximately 20 days out of every 28 day cycle. That means that for approximately 3/4 of every cycle she is infertile.

So for approximately 20 years out of the 25 years of marriage, the woman will be infertile. Now, let's add in the three pregnancies at 9 months each, equaling 27 months, or over two years. Adding that to the appoximately 20 years of infertility, we have 22 years of married infertility before menopause.

Now let's add in infertility from nusring. As readers mentioned, some women's fertility returns much sooner than others. It partly depends on the individual woman, and partly on her method of nursing, frequency, etc. The Couple to Couple Leauge website says on average a woman might experience at least six months of infertility. So three times six month of infertility equals 1.5 years. Let's add that to the equation, and we get 23.5 years. So out of the 27 years of married life before menopause, the woman is infertile for 23.5 out of those year.

Let's say that she and her husband have a 50 year marriage, until she is age 75, and then one of the spouses dies. That means 23 years of infertility between menopause at age 52 until she is 75. So out of the 50 year marriage, we end up with 46.5 years of infertility. Hmmm, looks like God made it so we can naturally enjoy sexual relations many times without even having to think about getting pregnant. Fertility is a short window of time, and out of all the years of marriage, does that really entail a high percentage of abstinence?

[80. Eliana said the following at 3:39 PM on May 7:]

80

Mandi,

Concerning Augustine and other early Church fathers: As I mentioned before, there has been a development of doctrine. Many of the early fathers focused on the procreative aspects of sex in marriage, and not the unitive. Considering the fact that the Roman empire was not exactly known for sexual morality or wecoming children (think infanticide), they would have wanted the Christians to stand apart from the lustful practices of the Roman empire.

Also consider how in my previous response how much a woman's life she is actually infertile. Consider moreover lower life expectancy and high infant mortality rates. In that context, wouldn't it at least make some sense to encourage a couple to only come together for the purposes of conceiving, since life was brief, and many of their children would die after being born?

Moreover, as I said, there had been a development of doctrine, and now the unitive aspects of sex have been emphasized as well as the procreative. So the Church's teachings were influenced in part by fathers such as Augustine, but are not wholly dependent on his writings.

You mention Chrysostom as recommending that couples not remain abstinent for long periods of time. Well, he never recommended contraception, so basically he is encouraging couples to come together often, even with the possibility of being fertile. He is not saying to have as much contraceptive sex as you want. Also, considering how much of her married life a woman is infertile, a couple can still come together very often and not get pregnant.

You mention Genesis and how God created woman for man so he should not be alone. How about the Genesis command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth? When I drive through the US, there's still an awful lot of space. We haven't filled the earth yet!

Also, you say the Bible mentions how the Bible only condemns lust and sexual sins outside of marriage. But couples in Biblical days wanted as many children as possible. They wouldn't have been contracepting. The one man who did so, Onan, was killed, and both Catholic and Protestant theologians have said that it was for contracepting that he was killed.

Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)

[81. Leah said the following at 6:36 PM on May 7:]

81

I think those who say NFP is ok but contraception isn't are being hypocritical.

You don't like contraception because it means sex which is not open to conception- but so does NFP!!

Not to mention, who wants to keep breastfeeding for 2 years just to avoid getting pregnant? How is that any better than using contraception?

[82. khalil said the following at 9:42 PM on May 7:]

82

I am kinda surprised that i haven't seen any comments about physical/more lasting bc methods (such as vasectomy, etc). what about chemical sterilization or injections? these are methods that prevent pregnancy most of the time and can be undone generally.

as for myself i am single and don't think i will ever be married. if i were i believe that i would have to find a spouse who does not want children. my life would be to terribly complicated by children and i am much more productive and able to do things without the hassle of children. i understand their value, but being a parent isn't for me (everyone is not made to be a father or a mother). if i die a virgin, so be it. i am and have been chaste so far in all my 30 years of existence and don't plan to deviate from that should i never marry.

[83. Eliana said the following at 10:26 PM on May 7:]

83

Andre, you quoted me:

'So yes, you may speak to Catholics who say different things about what the Church teaches, but the way to know the truth is to read the Catechism.'

then you said: "... and I always thought that the way to know the truth was to read the Bible and to listen to what God has to say..."

You misread my sentence. I was saying the way to know the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church does teach that truth can be found in the Bible, but that is not the only source. The other source is Tradition. As St. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

The "letter" is the Bible. The word of mouth is "Tradition." The Catholic Church put together the Bible and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit discerned which books belonged there. How we as Catholics interpret the Bible is based on Tradition.

Mandi, for your information, St. Augustine was one of the bishops who agreed to the canon of books we have in the Bible today, at the time when the Bible was finalized. This was at the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. If he was as anti-Bible as you say, why was did he take part in and agree with the meeting which finalized the books we have in the Bible? This synod (meeting) of bishops sent their Bible list to the Church in Rome, including the Pope, for its approval as to what books should be in the Bible. So even in the formation of the Bible, the church in Rome gave the final approval.

This is the pattern of the Church which has kept unity, even in the face of conflicting doctrine. In the end, Rome, including the bishops and the pope, has the final authority. Even in the Bible, with the disagreement over whether Gentiles must be circumcised, we see this pattern. The bishops gather as a body to pray and discern over the matter. They come to a consensus, and in the end, Peter, who was the first pope and Bishop of Rome, is the one who speaks the final decision. The bishops defer to the pope, just as they did later in the compilation of the Bible.

So you'll accept the Bible from the Church, but nothing else.

[84. KathleenM12 said the following at 11:50 PM on May 7:]

84

Leah writes: "I think those who say NFP is ok but contraception isn't are being hypocritical. You don't like contraception because it means sex which is not open to conception- but so does NFP!!"

Good point Leah. I suspect that the reason the NFPers don't like contraception is that it's actually effective -- while NFP is pretty much a roll of the dice.
Of course the NFPers will say "When practiced correctly, it's very effective!" But that's like saying "When you practice the *correct* golf swing, you're certain to get a hole-in-one."

[85. Marci said the following at 6:23 AM on May 8:]

85

Hey All!

Thanks to all the people who have provided answers to my questions about Catholic doctrine and NFP/birthcontrol.

Ted Slater, this question is for you (of course, you can answer it as much as you see fit, and if any other posters have great thoughts on this, feel free to post them as well): I was intrigued by your suggestion that NFP violates the spirit of 1 Cor 7:1-5. So of course I read the passage - I totally had forgotten about verse 5!

But here's my dilemma! If the pill is an abortificant, as are IUDs etc, and diaphragms/barriers 'dont allow you to have sex as God intended it to be (of course, suggestions of Gods intent here a likely subject to debate, I'm thinking), and NFP -which I thought might be an answer to prayer - causes partners to defraud each other....what really IS left?!? I mean, I dont want to get pregnant immediately after I marry, although I plan to have children sooner rather than later (maybe dont have children for the first two years, and then start trying?)

And another question: is NFP really defrauding if both parties have agreed to abstain in certain periods? I mean, when men go off to war and the wives are still at home, theres no sex qoing on for a good long while in some cases - wouldnt NFP be the same thing, except shorter absences/abstinance periods?

If verse 4 and 5 are read together, isnt the implication that people dont selfishly defraud each other for bribery/punishment purposes. And then, there is verse 6 where Paul says he "speak[s] this by permission, and not of commandment" (Im not a Bible scholar, so maybe you'll have more insight into the contexts surrounding this verse when it was written, etc...)

Whatever you're thoughts are, I'd be really happy to hear them. I won't lie - I really intended on doing birthcontrol for the first two years, but if it can't be done from a biblical perspective, then it can't be done.

Blessings to you

[86. Leah said the following at 7:45 AM on May 8:]

86

Kathleen, I have no doubt that NFP is effective when used correctly, and I also believe that it is easier to use it correctly than to learn the correct golf swing! I'm more inclined to think their problem is that NFP is 'natural' while other contraceptives aren't. Which, of course, should not be the issue being debated- it should be whether or not sex can be separated from the possibility of conception. I believe it is totally Ok (provided it is not for selfish reasons), whereas these anti-contraceptionists seem to say contraception is wrong because it does that- but so does NFP!

[87. Leah said the following at 7:54 AM on May 8:]

87

Eliana- the tradition of the apostles is not the same as our tradition. The tradition of the apostles is what Jesus himself said to them. Very little of Catholic tradition is suggested by Jesus himself- most of it has been conceived by men.

And NOWHERE does the bible say anything about Peter being a Pope. That is just a concept being thrown around by Catholics because they like to "holify" people- as we see with "Saint" this and "saint" that, and with Mary being supposedly holier than normal people, etc.

Rome, bishops and popes do not have ultimate authority. The bible does. If the pope says something against the bible and you'd rather believe him than the bible, then there are some serious issues to be dealt with.

[88. Marci said the following at 8:17 AM on May 8:]

88

Eliana,

The problem with the "tradition" argument is that it is open to *much* abuse. And the emphasis you place on the Bible being 'from the church' really, really makes me uncomfortable. My comfort doesn't matter, but the problem with this emphasis is that as Christians, we should *all* believe that the formulation of the Bible was divinely inspired. This means that God was in control, even though he used humans to get the job done his way - NOT that humans actually made the Bible, which is what your statement leans towards.

And the other thing - the number one source of truth is the Bible - don't forget scriptures which speak of the problems we get into when we either add or subtract from the word of God! If we're being honest, there are certain *traditions* in various denominations that do add or subtract from the word of God - and this is a problem, no matter which denomination is guilty of this! That means that if your traditions in the Catholic church speak where God doesnt - or even have traditions in ways of thinking on certain subjects that are not biblically based this is a problem.

Now, I understand from some postings that the Catholic church is united, yet from others, that teachings have evolved such that sex between married people isn't considered lustful. This brings me to the question I asked about the catholic church being united in another posting - the *minute* you start saying the church as evolved, a religious tradition is not unified, because it is *impossible* for all aspects of a denomination to evolve equally and in the same ways - thus, unity is out of the question/not happening. This has been proven by the numerous posts on whether on what the Catholic church believes - Mandi's exposure to catholicism through education should *not* be discounted! The fact is, if this is what she was taught - and it evidently is not in accordance with her own beliefs, or she wouldn't have a problem with it - from the Catholic system for 15 years, that means there are still Catholics who view sexuality between married people in a way that is at odds with the Bible. And since some people are saying the church has evolved (and for the record, I believe this must be true in some senses/some people in the Catholic church for some of the views aired on this post have more Biblical views of married sexuality) this should also not be ignored, because these are the types of transitions and growing pains that are *characteristic* of any denomination in the midst of transforming their beliefs on any given subject - it takes a long long time (if ever achieved!) to have everyone think and believe the same way, even if changes have been made.

I personally remember with great fondness in The Sound of Music (which I love!) where Maria tells the abess she is ready to take her vows, because she realizes that captain Von Trap is going to marry the Baroness, and she's trying to find some way to deal with her emotions in a way that is acceptable, given the situation. So she tells teh abess "I am ready at this moment to take my vows" and the abess says to her "Maria, the love of a man and woman is holy too!".

I always thought this scene was pretty clear about the fact that Maria was struggling with atraction and love for Captain Von Trap - even though the scene may dance around the issue of sexuality/it's not explicit, isn't this what the discussion is all about? We all know the difference between being a nun and being a married woman (amongst other things) is that one is celibate and the other can have sex! So, I think this scene shows a positive portrayal of the Catholic church's more 'evolved' stance on sexuality in marriage - so yes, this evolution has happened. But I think people should be kinder to Mandi, because if this is what she was taught (and look how long ago the Sound of Music was made!) then evidently some aspects of the Catholic church have not united on this issue! And its no wonder: the written word/literature is one of the most powerful tools of propogating discourse. Literature does not stop being powerful simply because a church has evolved. And if this is what the literature is saying - literataure many people poured over for years, and taught their children, and even taught Mandi at school (let's be honest, since it's not her personal belief, obviously Mandi was taught these views at school, and this says something! For instance, if teachers or administrators still have these views, what does this say about how much 'evolving' has gone on? The literature previously written still guides their perspectives, etc...), it will be ages until the evolution of discouse will happen (more church leaders would need to write on this "change" for it to continue, etc...and even then....[sigh])

And this all still doesnt solve the questions in my previous email about NFP and defrauding, etc....[sight]

Blessings to you all!

[89. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:42 AM on May 8:]

89

Leah's comments regarding Papacy:

"And NOWHERE does the bible say anything about Peter being a Pope. That is just a concept being thrown around by Catholics because they like to "holify" people- as we see with "Saint" this and "saint" that, and with Mary being supposedly holier than normal people, etc."

The reference Roman Catholics refer to is in Matthew 16:17-19

"Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'"

Just to clarify the 2 Greek words for "rock" used here: The first word (Peter's name, 'Petros') refers to a smaller stone while the second refers to a boulder-sized one ('Petra'). Some commentators theorize that Jesus was actually refering to Himself when using the second word for "rock" in reference to Himself for building the church which does make sense given other references to God being a rock as well as Christ being a chief cornerstone (2 Sam 22:3, Psa 18:2, Eph 2:20, etc)

However even if we were to assume that Jesus did mean Peter as whom He was building His church upon there really is no rock-hard (sorry for the pun) evidence to show that Peter had any greater authority than any of the other apostles. In fact there were times when Paul had to chastise Peter because he was insisting Gentile Christians become circumcised and obey the Jewish Law.

I also find it curious that "Sainthood" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church requires a number of prerequisites among, other things two substantiated miracles. Yet throughout the Bible it seems to refer to all Believers as "saints".
I don't totally understand the purpose of giving the specific title of "sainthood" to specific people but even Paul said that all his credentials (Philip 3:4-9).

[90. Ted Slater said the following at 8:52 AM on May 8:]

90

Marci -- great questions. This is quite an unsettled issue -- even among the Boundless team, you'll find different responses. Let me give you my thoughts:

Focus on the Family has released a "position statement" on birth control. That's probably the best place to start. Here's an excerpt:

From the outset, Dr. Dobson would emphasize as foundational his strict concurrence with the biblical teaching that every child is a blessing from God. The entire ministry of Focus on the Family has been grounded upon this truth. While affirming that human life begins with fertilization (the union of sperm and egg), his interpretation of Scripture leads him to believe that the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong. However, he would oppose any method of birth control that acts after fertilization and terminates a conceived human life by preventing its implantation in the womb. For example, the intrauterine device, or IUD, as it is commonly called, is thought to interfere with implantation of the fertilized egg, and, therefore, may terminate human life in its very early stages.

Note the line, "the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong."

Most "pills" are abortifacients, but evidence indicates that some are not. Barrier methods (condoms, etc.) are also not abortifacients. Spermicides likewise are not abortifacients.

"Family planning" (whether "natural" or "unnatural") is something we should leave up to each family. It's our hope that these families recognize the blessing that children are, and that they're not rejecting or needlessly prolonging receiving this blessing by their choices. At the same time, there's grace and freedom to make decisions, for various legitimate reasons, that extend the time between childbirths.

Let me close with a question for those who insist that sex always be accompanied by the possibility that a child will be conceived: Are you against sexual activity when the wife is pregnant already, or during the period following birth when a mother is breastfeeding (God's imposition of birth control)? Such a dogmatic position is very problematic....

[91. Eliana said the following at 9:15 AM on May 8:]

91

Well, I had a response explaining the difference between NFP and contraception, but I guess the moderator decided not to include it or made a mistake. One brief reply is that with contraception you withhold your lifegiving aspect of yourself from your spouse, whereas with NFP you give all of yourself to your spouse.

Leah, let me just ask you if you have studied the writings of the early church and seen what they actually believed in the earliest centuries. You might be surprised by how many "Catholic" practices and Traditions dates back from the apostles' time. And if you trace the Popes back through the centuries, they go all the way back to Peter. Saints go back the beginning of the church. The early martyrs were revered by their fellow Christians, and were the first saints.

[92. Eliana said the following at 9:25 AM on May 8:]

92

Leah said:

"Ted Slater, this question is for you (of course, you can answer it as much as you see fit, and if any other posters have great thoughts on this, feel free to post them as well): I was intrigued by your suggestion that NFP violates the spirit of 1 Cor 7:1-5. So of course I read the passage - I totally had forgotten about verse 5!"

Well, if you are infertile for most of the month, then you would only be abstaining for a brief time during the fertile period and then coming back together, so it's only a limited time. Also, Christians were not known for using contraception like the culture around them, so basically St. Paul is saying that husbands and wives should accept their fertility from God and come together often, even it it means having children. He wasn't saying to have as much contraceptive sex as possible.

Also, he speaks of husbands and wives having authority over one anothers bodies. But in contraception you hold back the life-giving part of your body from your spouse, not allowing them control over you.

[93. Marci said the following at 9:41 AM on May 8:]

93

Ted Slater et al:

Thank you for your replies to my questions - they provided a lot of helpful information that will help me to make a wise descion when the time comes.

Blessings to you all!

[94. Ted Slater said the following at 9:46 AM on May 8:]

94

Again, Eliana, I believe your position is flawed because God Himself imposes seasons of infertility on women (the time after they give birth and are breastfeeding, for example). Would you say that God is sinning by inhibiting women from being able to conceive during that time?

Or what about when women are pregnant? Surely they can enjoy sex with their husbands, even though there's little chance such an encounter will result in conception.

In these two examples, by your definition, the "life-giving" dimension of sex is absent. And therefore such sexual activity is sinful?

Again, let me conclude that there are, even within Focus on the Family, valid differences of opinion on this issue. But there is some common ground. The things to keep in mind are that 1) children are indeed a blessing, and we could do better than to prolong or prohibit their birth, and 2) there are many valid reasons couples have for delaying or removing the possibility of getting pregnant.

FWIW, my wife and I had two daughters within the first couple years of our marriage.

[95. Mandi said the following at 9:48 AM on May 8:]

95

"Concerning Augustine and other early Church fathers: As I mentioned before, there has been a development of doctrine."

Bingo.

"Development of doctrine" is something that you are not entitled to engage in. On this, or any other subject. Even the Scripture you cited says this: it says "hold fast", not develop, twist, contradict, add to, subtract from. Hold fast.

The passages you and others referred me to that describe "lust" and "sexual immorality" in ways that completely defy Scriptures are not Apostolic Tradition. They are *Roman* tradition, but not *Apostolic*.

If they were Apostolic, you could trace them back to the beliefs and practices written by the men of faith who received the Light of Christ, either from our Savior Himself, or from His own Disciples. On these issues, the Roman Church can't. Just because someone like Augustine was around much closer to the time of Christ than you and I, it doesn't make his writing "Apostolic". To be "Apostolic" it needs to be in accordance with the teachings and practices of, well, the Apostles. When Augustine and Aquinas go off and start "developing doctrine", as you say, on the very holiness of the sex between a husband and wife -- and use language about harlotry, adultery, beastiality, and sodomy to describe marital sex, their writing cannot be said to be in accordance with that of the Apostles of Christ. Period.

Again, the Apostles taught that the "bed" was "undefiled", and then contrasted that with fornication and adultery in the very same sentence. Any teaching that "develops" the definition of "defiled" sexuality beyond that is not part of Holy Tradition. Period.

We also *clearly* see that the primary reason for marriage is for the avoidance of sexual immorality (which, after all, cannot be avoided outside of marriage, whereas procreation *can* happen outside of marriage):

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to *touch* a woman. ****Nevertheless, ***because of*** sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the *affection* due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband."

He's talking about "touching" in one verse, and following that with *"[n]evertheless, BECAUSE OF sexual immorality"*.

And Genesis 2 *clearly* shows that God made marriage to alleviate Adam's *loneliness*.

No one is saying that sex between a man and his wife can *never* be lustful. It can if it is nonconsensual. It can if it involves sodomy. It can if it involves 3rd parties. It can if one party has no regard for the physical or mental lack of willingness to participate.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We're not talking about unnatural positions or forced sex. We're talking about the very *nature* of (normal, consensual) sex between a husband and wife. It is holy. It is a glimpse of God's pleasure in *us*. (Yes, pleasure. Pleasure is one of the things God built into sex, as a way of building the bond and love, and cementing the life-long attraction between lifetime partners. It is wrong to say something that God made, in the context that He made it, is "lustful".) It is an image of God's love. Period. No one has the right to take what God has said is pure, undefiled, and reflective of *Him*, and say that it is -- gasp -- akin to sodomy and beastiality.

Augustine may have presided over the counsels that canonized the Scriptures as we know them today. But somehow that didn't stop him from writing about sex within marriage in ways that directly *contradict* those Scriptures.

Ironically, Apostolic Tradition, which you purport to defend, disproves everything you're saying. Not just from the biblical passages that point to the holiness of sex in marriage without need for justification by "openness" to procreation. But the Early Church had as its *norm* married priests. Because most of the Apostles were married. Even Peter! There was absolutely no consternation between having a man touch his wife and make love to her one day, and go and celebrate the Eucharist the very next, touching the true Body and handling the true Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. *That* should speak *volumes* about what Apostolic Tradition on this point is, and is not.

[96. Mandi said the following at 10:20 AM on May 8:]

96

Eliana,

You said: "Leah, let me just ask you if you have studied the writings of the early church and seen what they actually believed in the earliest centuries. You might be surprised by how many "Catholic" practices and Traditions dates back from the apostles' time."

With the greatest respect, I would invite you to do the same. You will find that you have had "development of doctrine", as you rightfully called it, on so very many issues, you would be surprised to see how little is *left* in the Roman Church.

*Just* off the top of my head, your teachings which have departed from the Early Church on everything from salvation, to the proper place of the Virgin Mary, to the proper order and administration of the mysteries/sacraments of initiation into the Church, to the exclusion of infants from the Eucharist, to the dropping of one of the elements of the Eucharist altogether, to your teachings about sex, to indulgences, to purgatory, to altering the liturgical worship, to virtually doing away with the fasts practiced by the Early Church, to infallibility, to alleged universal jurisdiction, to celibate priesthood as the norm. Not to mention the very doctrine of "development of doctrine". The teachings about these things have all been changed, or "developed", AWAY from Apostolic Tradition.

The Early Church had 4 main centres of Christendom: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome; later Constantinople became one too. Rome chose to depart ways at a certain point, most unfortunately. So it can no longer claim to be amongst those believing and doing things that date way back anymore.

"And if you trace the Popes back through the centuries, they go all the way back to Peter."

Sorry, again, this is something the Roman Church has not "held fast" to since the beginning either. For one thing, Peter started the Church in Antioch too. So why emphasize Rome? For another, Roman bishops for at least the first EIGHT centuries did not interpret Matt. 16:18 as later bishops who took to "developing" the reading of that did.

The "rock" is the *confession* of Peter, that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God. It is on *that confession* that the Church is built, not on a mere mortal who *himself* required the Blood of Christ. It is nonsensical in the extreme to read this verse in contradiction to everything the Bible says about the very foundations of Christianity.

Our Lord Himself repeatedly put to rest issues of "who is the greatest" amongst His Disciples, of which Peter was one (Mark 9:33-35, Luke 9: 45-48, Luke 22:24-27).

The Roman Church's claims about Peter also directly contradict the biblical model of addressing questions/issues in the Church, found in Acts 15. If Peter was superior to all and his word was infallible, there would have been no *need* for a counsel of all the Apostles. Why bother come together as a *group* for the Holy Spirit to speak the answer if Peter was as you say he was?

I appreciate this can be a sensitive subject, and I didn't even want to "go there" with my posts specifically about fertility. But I can't just sit idly by and watch the Early Church be misrepresented like that. Perhaps that is all that you have been taught. But I encourage you to dig into the earliest centuries of Christianity to see what I am saying.

[97. ElianaMurphy said the following at 10:23 AM on May 8:]

97

Okay, last post on this topic. :)

Ted, you asked:
"Let me close with a question for those who insist that sex always be accompanied by the possibility that a child will be conceived: Are you against sexual activity when the wife is pregnant already, or during the period following birth when a mother is breastfeeding (God's imposition of birth control)? Such a dogmatic position is very problematic...."

Ah, so you are misunderstanding us. We are saying that couples need to be open to conception in the sense that they do not put up barriers to God's will and each other, and do not try as hard as possible to avoid the consequences of the sexual act. We are not saying that you can only have sex when you are fertile. To really understand all this better, how it works and the moral reasons behind it you would have to study about the Theology of the Body and NFP more, starting with the resources different posters mentioned.

As others have said, there is such beauty in Natural Family Planning, which can be used both to avoid or to achieve pregnancy. It is not merely a pregnancy prevention plan. It develops heightened awareness of the wonder of a woman's bodily design, and how she is graced with both fertile and infertile periods. However, it can be used selfishly and to always avoid pregnancy, and then it can become sinful.

But when used with the right heart of surrendering to God and to your spouse, it can be beautiful, as I know from seeing the lives of many Catholic couples. It allows the woman to keep her body free from poisonous medicines designed to kill either sperm or an early life. It allows the man to give himself fully into the innermost part of his wife, with no artificial barrier in between. It allows both husband and wife to enjoy their bodies unmutilated with removal of the organs which define male or female. It treats pregnancy as a healthy gift rather than as a disease or pestilence to be avoided at all costs when the parents do not want it.

In short, why not at least explore fully the option of NFP? It's benefits outweigh the cost, and allow husband and wife to be more close during sexual union than any type of contraception, since it is the only type that allows you to give your whole self--your soul, your body, your fertility and infertility. At least explore the option fully--you just might be surprised.

[98. John said the following at 11:05 AM on May 8:]

98

Mandi said:

"No one is saying that sex between a man and his wife can *never* be lustful. ... It can if it involves sodomy."

Are we sure about that? The Bible nowhere defines "sodomy," while it is clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their rampant homosexual and extramarital activity.

Not that it makes a great deal of practical difference to a celibate single man (who anticipates being married one day), but I was under the impression that within the marital relationship everything is fair game. Are prohibitions against "sodomy" between a husband and wife a Biblical command, or a tradition taught by men?

[99. André said the following at 11:23 AM on May 8:]

99

No offense meant, but all this talk about catholic teachings is making me think (literally): "Thank God for Reformation."

[100. Jason said the following at 12:16 PM on May 8:]

100

Ted, I doubt Eliana would call God a sinner for creating times of infertility since she referred to similar times of infertility herself when she talked about a couple coming back together during the infertile time of the month.

I think this can be a constructive discussion for people who are trying to decide what's right for their family, so I'll throw a couple new pieces into the mix that I hope will be helpful.

Kathleen, NFPers don't just say "When practiced correctly, it's very effective!" they say that NFP is just as effective as other forms of BC when you compare real world user effectiveness.

Research indicates that when an NFP-practicing woman conceives during a time when she thought she was infertile but it turns out she was just fertile enough, there may be an increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects due to aged gametes at the time of conception. Typepad blocked my links to the medical research, but Wikipedia lists several studies in the sources for this article on NFP

I'm willing to talk to anyone who has questions for a guy with a couple of years of NFP under his belt.