Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jul 12, 2008 10:52:15 GMT -5
What is the basic history behind the Church's teaching on contraception? peace (now I'm checking out )
|
|
|
Post by tcabeen on Jul 12, 2008 11:41:21 GMT -5
Hi Olivia,
God's people have always viewed the basic purpose of sex to be for reproduction, not recreation. "Be fruitful and multiply" said God in the beginning, and that command was never rescended. That sex was sacred and for reproduction within marriage only was the case in ancient Israel, and so it has been among all Christians, starting with the apostles and right down till today.
In harmony with that, contraception has always been viewed as wrong by all Christians until the twentieth century. The Anglican Church was the first to crack to social pressure by allowing it. Here is how Kathleen O'Grady explains it...[begin quote]
Prior to the 1930s all Christian denominations were united in their firm rejection of contraceptives. The Lambeth Conference of the Church of England (1930) marks the first departure from this unanimous prohibition, by advocating the use of artificial contraception when abstinence was deemed impracticable.
The Federal Council of Churches (1931) equally adopted a policy of conservative advocation for artificial birth control methods. Most major Protestant traditions followed suit, and by 1961, the National Council of Churches declared a liberal policy on contraceptive use, subject to mutual consent between couples.
The total prohibition of artificial birth control methods by the Roman Catholic church, declared by Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical, Casi Connubii, was maintained by the 1968 Humanae vitae (the encyclical of Pope Paul VI), and constitutes the present day policy of the church. [end quote] (Kathleen O'Grady is Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Women's Studies, University of Ottawa.)
In this as in so many other matters, the Church made a definitive statement about her teaching only after heretical groups (defined as those who follow their own opinion rather than the historical faith) departed from what had always been Christian teaching.
Probably the most ardent promoter of birth control of all time was Margaret Sanger. An ardent disciple of Thomas Malthus, a nineteenth-century mathematician who calculated that if we didn't begin controlling birth, we would soon be overrun with people, Sanger, an intense hater of the Catholic Church, went on a campaign promoting birth control as a way of selectively breeding the best of humans and eliminating the undesirables.
Sanger was a tireless evangelist of her ideas, and was a major influence on the Nazi programs which resulted in the holocaust. She was also the founder of Planned Parenthood, which has been the most vocal supporter of abortion worldwide.
I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger has been responsible for more deaths than all wars, plagues and natural disasters put together during all of human history. Perhaps the only woman who surpasses her is Eve.
For her unique story, I suggest Killer Angel, a well-documented biography of Sanger by George Grant.
Tom
|
|
|
Post by anne on Jul 13, 2008 6:00:49 GMT -5
Wasting seed was not allowed .My Mum had 8 children many RCs had large families..... and there was a lot of poverty ,as well as worn-out women.
Being sterilized was also wrong in those days,has it all changed?
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jul 13, 2008 11:16:50 GMT -5
Just to add to Tom, in general birth control has _tended_ to be abortive. This took the form of various teas used by the Ancients (variants of mint many times). The Church has always been opposed to such methods. There were early condoms, mostly made from intestines in the same way sausage casing was developed. While there isn't a clear condemnation of these they likewise seem to have been at least actively discouraged.
To give you an idea of the assumption that children would result from marriage it is educational to consult the different revisions of the Book of Common Prayer (the Church of England's version of the Missal): (1662 version from the rite of marriage opening paragraph emphasis mine): DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jul 13, 2008 13:06:30 GMT -5
Hi Olivia, God's people have always viewed the basic purpose of sex to be for reproduction, not recreation. "Be fruitful and multiply" said God in the beginning, and that command was never rescended. That sex was sacred and for reproduction within marriage only was the case in ancient Israel, and so it has been among all Christians, starting with the apostles and right down till today. In harmony with that, contraception has always been viewed as wrong by all Christians until the twentieth century. The Anglican Church was the first to crack to social pressure by allowing it. Here is how Kathleen O'Grady explains it...[begin quote] Prior to the 1930s all Christian denominations were united in their firm rejection of contraceptives. The Lambeth Conference of the Church of England (1930) marks the first departure from this unanimous prohibition, by advocating the use of artificial contraception when abstinence was deemed impracticable. The Federal Council of Churches (1931) equally adopted a policy of conservative advocation for artificial birth control methods. Most major Protestant traditions followed suit, and by 1961, the National Council of Churches declared a liberal policy on contraceptive use, subject to mutual consent between couples. The total prohibition of artificial birth control methods by the Roman Catholic church, declared by Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical, Casi Connubii, was maintained by the 1968 Humanae vitae (the encyclical of Pope Paul VI), and constitutes the present day policy of the church. [end quote] (Kathleen O'Grady is Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Women's Studies, University of Ottawa.) In this as in so many other matters, the Church made a definitive statement about her teaching only after heretical groups (defined as those who follow their own opinion rather than the historical faith) departed from what had always been Christian teaching. Probably the most ardent promoter of birth control of all time was Margaret Sanger. An ardent disciple of Thomas Malthus, a nineteenth-century mathematician who calculated that if we didn't begin controlling birth, we would soon be overrun with people, Sanger, an intense hater of the Catholic Church, went on a campaign promoting birth control as a way of selectively breeding the best of humans and eliminating the undesirables. Sanger was a tireless evangelist of her ideas, and was a major influence on the Nazi programs which resulted in the holocaust. She was also the founder of Planned Parenthood, which has been the most vocal supporter of abortion worldwide. I would not be surprised to learn that Sanger has been responsible for more deaths than all wars, plagues and natural disasters put together during all of human history. Perhaps the only woman who surpasses her is Eve. For her unique story, I suggest Killer Angel, a well-documented biography of Sanger by George Grant. Tom That is interesting regarding the fact that contraception has been viewed so negatively for all these centuries. Interesting about Sanger. One of the first things that came to mind as I was reading your post was the probability of using contraception as a means to control population/undesirables etc. I did a little more research on this and found a great article. catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jul 13, 2008 13:18:02 GMT -5
Just to add to Tom, in general birth control has _tended_ to be abortive. This took the form of various teas used by the Ancients (variants of mint many times). The Church has always opposed such to means. There were early condoms, mostly made from intestines in the same way sausage casing was developed. While there isn't a clear condemnation of these they likewise seem to have been at least actively discouraged.To give you an idea of the assumption that children would result from marriage it is educational to consult the different revisions of the Book of Common Prayer (the Church of England's version of the Missal): (1662 version from the rite of marriage opening paragraph emphasis mine): DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace. I remember as a JW, when I married and was choosing my contraception, there was the need to make sure that the method was not in reality an abortive type. In reality, one of the main purposees for sexual relations is procreation, so when we read about Onan, it just makes sense. What you write really goes along with what else I had discovered. I have to say I found it really interesting to read about potions and drugs. It goes really well what was written in the OT. Truthfully, it really brings a rounded out understanding of the texts. I think it's pretty wild how the Catholic forum has a whole little section dedicated to natural planning. I have to say, you can't be shy about talking about the body when going into that forum
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jul 13, 2008 15:38:16 GMT -5
I remember as a JW, when I married and was choosing my contraception, there was the need to make sure that the method was not in reality an abortive type. If so you were better than me. We did use the pill early on and stopped for reasons of health that had nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. What shocked me is that the GB knew that there was a possible abortive effect and ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by onpatmos on Jul 14, 2008 6:49:14 GMT -5
I remember as a JW, when I married and was choosing my contraception, there was the need to make sure that the method was not in reality an abortive type. If so you were better than me. We did use the pill early on and stopped for reasons of health that had nothing to do with the ethics of the situation. What shocked me is that the GB knew that there was a possible abortive effect and ignored it.For those who have access to older issues of the Watchtower, a reference for the point that GK makes above is the Questions From Readers in the June 15, 1989 Watchtower. A booklet showing the possible abortive effects of the Pill: www.omsoul.com/pamphlet126.How-the-Pill-and-Other-Contraceptives-WorkA good site for information on the question of contraception: www.omsoul.com/
|
|
|
Post by anne on Jul 14, 2008 9:06:22 GMT -5
Is there anything in Jesus teachings about contraception??or is it all from the OT. Thanks.
Surely sex within marriage is to be enjoyed? says so in the Bible .and should not deprive each other.This is all sounding very clinical........you can't live in the OT times can you?1 Cor: 7
What rules are for Christians?
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jul 14, 2008 9:12:01 GMT -5
Ok, I may have access to this. Heh, let me see what I can do to find it. If not, thee folks at Jehovah's Witness Discussion always like a good challenge to dig up old articles. Blondie is pretty good at that, as is Jgnat.
Better than you?? Hardly. This is the first I have heard that the pill can be abortive. I know that when you double up your dosage, it can be. I.e. a woman is told that if she misses a day she can take two the next day. Well, what she isn't told is that this is the literal prescription for the "oopsie I forgot to take my pill and we had intercourse, what do I do now?" symptom. Taking two bc pills keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the ...okay let me get health ed right...uterus. I think. I.e. the egg HAS been fertilized but the double dosage just sheds it right out, an abortion. I'm not a nurse, or a health instructor, but that is how the dr basically explained it to me. So no, no way I am not better than you. Had I known or understood the pill was an abortant at all, I wouldn't have taken it at all. I looked at a lot of different contraceptives and yeah, a lot of them are and the information is a bit more readily available.
And yes it is appalling that the GB would know this and not say anything. So much for sanctity of life.
peace
|
|
NanaR
Church Militant
Posts: 173
|
Post by NanaR on Jul 14, 2008 10:05:45 GMT -5
Ok, I may have access to this. Heh, let me see what I can do to find it. If not, thee folks at Jehovah's Witness Discussion always like a good challenge to dig up old articles. Blondie is pretty good at that, as is Jgnat. Better than you?? Hardly. This is the first I have heard that the pill can be abortive. I know that when you double up your dosage, it can be. I.e. a woman is told that if she misses a day she can take two the next day. Well, what she isn't told is that this is the literal prescription for the "oopsie I forgot to take my pill and we had intercourse, what do I do now?" symptom. Taking two bc pills keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the ...okay let me get health ed right...uterus. I think. I.e. the egg HAS been fertilized but the double dosage just sheds it right out, an abortion. I'm not a nurse, or a health instructor, but that is how the dr basically explained it to me. So no, no way I am not better than you. Had I known or understood the pill was an abortant at all, I wouldn't have taken it at all. I looked at a lot of different contraceptives and yeah, a lot of them are and the information is a bit more readily available. And yes it is appalling that the GB would know this and not say anything. So much for sanctity of life. peace Olivia: I can look up the Question from Readers for you if you want me too. Basically, it acknowledges that birth control pills act in 2 ways: 1) to prevent ovulation and 2) to change the lining of the uterus in such a way as to make implantation difficult. The second way is something that I would consider abortive. Away back in the dark ages when I got married (1974), the Society literature only mentioned the first "way" that the pill acts. Therefore, I started on the pill a couple of months before I got married. Like most young couples who had not been properly educated as to artificial contraception, we thought WE should be in charge of when or if we had children. I only remained on the pill for three months, as it gave me terrible migraine headaches. In November of 1974, I had a very bad miscarriage. I say "very bad" because I had missed four periods but I miscarried a fetus having a much earlier age. The doctor told me that my miscarriage was likely caused by the fact that I had been on the pill and had gotten pregnant soon after stopping the pill. He said that the hormones in birth control pills were "hostile" to the developing fetus. Miscarrying my first pregnancy was a highly emotional experience for me, and then finding out that my taking the pill FOR ONLY THREE MONTHS had most probably caused that miscarriage made me feel even worse. I completely missed the point of that 1989 Question from Readers (by that time I had 3 kids and probably didn't even read it). I didn't learn that the Society knew about the abortive effect of the pill until I started posting on this forum. I have a lot more to say about the negative effects of a culture that views artificial contraception as a RIGHT, but I'm at work so that will have to wait until later. Pax, Ruth
|
|
|
Post by onpatmos on Jul 14, 2008 10:46:39 GMT -5
Sorry about your experience, Ruth.
Same here, and I always considered myself studious. It's a testimony to me of how un-analytically I was reading the Society's literature, and I have to suppose that that is the case for others also.
To this I would add - that whatever negative effect the acceptance of contraception has on the larger culture applies to some degree to the Witnesses, because of their acceptance of it. I can't prove it, but IMO I think it is contributive towards the problems that they do have with regards to sexual morals.
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Post by Meagan on Jul 14, 2008 12:08:41 GMT -5
Ok, yes please do so. This MAKES ME MAD. I don't think I should use the words to describe how mad I am. Ya know those pigs. All their talk about sanctity of life and how taking blood is show a disrespect for life. What about abortion? If taking the pill acts in a way that causes implantation to not work after the initial conception between egg and sperm, that is abortion. It is deliberately causing the death of this new person.
That's just wrong.
Wow. I remember when my husband and I started thinking about having kids I started missing the pill because I didn't want problems conceiving and my husband is 16 yrs older than me. After Hannah I started a couple of packs but heh, uhm, missed pills...anyway...point is.. I do not like what it does to the body. I know that I have heard of other women who have had problems with migraines and other complications.
((((((((ruth)))))))))
I'm so sorry about your miscarriage.
|
|
NanaR
Church Militant
Posts: 173
|
Post by NanaR on Jul 14, 2008 14:16:09 GMT -5
Ok, yes please do so. This MAKES ME MAD. I don't think I should use the words to describe how mad I am. Ya know those pigs. All their talk about sanctity of life and how taking blood is show a disrespect for life. What about abortion? If taking the pill acts in a way that causes implantation to not work after the initial conception between egg and sperm, that is abortion. It is deliberately causing the death of this new person. That's just wrong. Olivia: Here are quotations from several JW magazines regarding "the pill". The first of these are the ones that I would have had available to consult prior to getting married. Note that while many possible side effects of the pill are listed in the early articles, the possible abortive effect is not mentioned. Even in the 1989 article, the very significant effect of changing the lining of the uterus is pretty much glossed over. I don't have immediate access to the 1962 Awake article, but it's pretty clear from the above that birth control pills (and other forms of artificial birth control) were not prohibited by the Society in the 1960s. The following article came out the same month that I got engaged. More about health effects, but no more clarification as to how the pill prevents pregnancy. Now the infamous 1989 article mentioned by onpatmos. This article details the secondary effect of preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, but then glosses over the fact and makes reference to an article on abortion which I have also copied. It is pretty clear to me, that once having left the strong Christian tradition of not interfering with conception except through self control on the part of the partners, the Watchtower Society ended up in a maze of legalistic reasoning that confused people like me and caused heartache and loss as a result. I hope I did not copy too much. Pax, Ruth
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jul 14, 2008 19:59:41 GMT -5
Is there anything in Jesus teachings about contraception??or is it all from the OT. Thanks. It depends on what you mean by that. Jesus did teach in the Old Testament. In the New Testament he repeated His instructions that the "two would become one flesh" which is done physically in the final act of procreation. I'd remind you that the OT is probably more open in discussing sex as being fun. To quote Proverbs, "with her breasts be constantly intoxicated" (honestly honey! I'm just being devout!). Being fun and having children shouldn't be mutually exclusive. There is an argument that Rome has gone a bit too far (as some in Orthodoxy claim), but given the current anti-child climate it would be hard to prove.
|
|