Christianity Today’s her*meneutics blog has an article on natural family planning that’s not very flattering toward that practice at all:
Bethany and Sam Torode divorced in 2009 after nine years of marriage, during which they had four children. Early in their marriage, the couple wrote a book called Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception, in which they argued that natural family planning (NFP) is the healthiest, most spiritually enriching contraceptive approach for Christians. …Oh well. One can be assured that Andronikos and Junia didn’t practice NFP.
The Torodes, as other NFP supporters do, argued in their book and here at Christianity Today that not only is NFP as effective as medical forms of birth control when done correctly (which admittedly requires knowledge and practice), but also makes for healthier marriages that more closely align with God’s purposes for husbands and wives. They believe NFP honors our God-given bodies and fertility cycles rather than manipulating them to suit our preferences. It makes each act of intercourse truly open to God’s procreative purpose for marriage. ...
The Torodes’ marriage did not last. But even before they divorced, they renounced NFP in a 2006 statement. They said that NFP can lead to guilt and frustration when the couple desires sex, but has to abstain, particularly given that many women are particularly interested in sex during ovulation. They argued that, rather than embracing God’s gift of the body, NFP can lead couples to reject physical intimacy, either because they don’t want to conceive, or because they are exhausted by raising children whose births may have been unplanned. (The statement is no longer easily accessible on the Internet, so I am paraphrasing based on a variety of sources that quote from it.)
Pathetic post by any standards. When you got to stretch as low as fishing for singular examples where a couple gets divorced to prove that it is A-OK for Christians to take pills to prevent human life than you've officially jumped the shark.
ReplyDeleteI knew about Sam and Bethany's promotion of NFP, and I knew about their renouncement of it. Their divorce and apostasy, though, I wasn't aware of till now. This really saddens me.
ReplyDelete"Pathetic post by any standards."
ReplyDeleteGee, I don't know. While I may not agree that the point is made with a single example, I wouldn't call it pathetic by MY standard and that is included in "ANY standard".
Further, suppose that John was able to provide a dozen "singular" examples, would that change your mind? Probably not. Would there be any number of "singular examples" gathered together it total that would cause you to doubt a Catholic teaching? My guess would again be "no".
EA. I just linked a study demonstrating remarkably low divorce rates for couples practicing NFP but it was deleted from this fair forum.
ReplyDeleteGoogle: NFP + Divorce Rate and then tell me.
(Andy maybe if you weren't so itching to find ANYTHING that colors the Catholic Church in a bad light you would see just how pathetic this really is).
"It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime"
ReplyDelete-John Calvin "Commentary on Genesis"
"I just linked a study demonstrating remarkably low divorce rates for couples practicing NFP but it was deleted from this fair forum."
ReplyDeleteI don't have influence over the editorial poicies of this blog, but given the fact that Catholic Answers and other "fair" arbiters of internet apologetics operate the same way, I don't think I'll be losing much sleep over this. Take it up with management.
"And maybe if you weren't so itching to find ANYTHING that colors the Catholic Church in a bad light you would see just how pathetic this really is"
Given its history, the RCC itself provides me with a practically limitless array of error from which to select; no itching required. Though the urge to shower after reading about some of the RCC's history can sometimes be strong.
"It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime"
ReplyDeleteIf you read some of the articles here you'll realize that Calvin is not the rule of faith for reformed theology, the Bible is.
The quote above perhaps suffers from Calvin's over-appreciation for Aquinas' moral theology with respect to Onanism which may be a byproduct of the period in which Calvin lived. Aquinas' understanding of biology was also incorrect in that he thought that the male provided all of the genetic material for reproduction. So the "spilling of seed" was tantamount to infant exposure. Today, we know that the male and female contribute equally to the reproduction of the species, but Catholic moral theology is encased in medieval amber.
In any event, neither Calvin nor Luther acts as a pope for Protestants.
"I just linked a study demonstrating remarkably low divorce rates for couples practicing NFP"
ReplyDeleteA fairly reasonable inference here would be that couples that are inclined to use NFP are Catholic. If so, we would expect these same couples to have a fairly low opinion of divorce. So the low divorce rate among couples practicing NFP would be coincidental rather than causal. As an aside, I would expect NFP practicing couples to have a higher annulment rate than society at large.
to take pills to prevent human life
ReplyDeleteActually, the pill is abortifacient.
Barrier method.
When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime.
Quite so, since that's abortion, but what has this to do with barrier methods?
'...Calvin is not the rule of faith...the bible is...'
ReplyDelete- The only remotely related passage is Onan purposefully spilling seed. Look it up.
Rho - maybe you did not read where Calvin also wrote: "It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible."
Urbani,
ReplyDeleteYes, and the text also specifically tells us that God killed Onan b/c he refused to give his brother a child. Not for interruptus.
And I missed where I said that whatever Calvin says, I agree with.
So 'the bible is my guide' really means: If the bible is not explicit against and act that it is not a sin.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you teach your children?
And that despite the fact that in the history of the Christian faith this was a unanimous understanding until about 1930. Protestant and Catholic alike.
So 'the bible is my guide' really means: If the bible is not explicit against and act that it is not a sin.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you teach your children?
No, it's a bit more nuanced than that, but that is the essence, yes.
Tell you what - you give me your argument as to why sex with a condom is evil, and we can go from there.
that despite the fact that in the history of the Christian faith this was a unanimous understanding until about 1930. Protestant and Catholic alike.
Behold the impotence of the argumentum ad populum!
Urbani: - The only remotely related passage is Onan purposefully spilling seed. Look it up.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should look this up and see what it really means. I'll give you a hint: you are misusing this passage.
"give me your argument as to why sex with a condom is evil, and we can go from there."
ReplyDeleteNo. Considering that you are expressly going against the teaching of every church father and even Reformed fathers and the christian faith for about 2,000 years you tell me what wearing condoms is ok.
I can happily point to about 450years worth of christian teaching on the subject from Protestant sources alone but I doubt that would persuad you. The fact is that so many Christians have simply given in to popular culture and modern anti-life philosophy. A philosophy that treats God's gift of life as something that should be halted.
"Be fruitful and multiply."
'I'll give you a hint: you are misusing this passage.'
ReplyDeleteThe stock answer for a Protestant. You should tell that to John Calvin and Martin Luther. And every Prostant churchman from the Reformation to the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
The sad irony.
ReplyDeleteOn a Christian forum I am the only one arguing for life.
Everything else are human based justifications for choices one makes to conform theif lives to the culture.
You are not the only one "arguing for life". You are the only one arguing for a practice that fails to take into account the advances of medicine to make our lives better.
ReplyDeleteThere is a key difference.
No. Considering that you are expressly going against the teaching of every church father and even Reformed fathers and the christian faith for about 2,000 years you tell me what wearing condoms is ok.
ReplyDeleteBoy, you sure showed me.
"Be fruitful and multiply."
Done and done - notice how there's 6+ billion people around?
And "multiply" doesn't tell us how many times we should multiply.
Urbani, it's pretty clear you're an unthinking Romanist drone. One more chance to engage the Onan psg in the Bible and to answer my questions, or you can find someone else to talk to.
'You are the only one arguing for a practice that fails to take into account the advances of medicine to make our lives better.'
ReplyDeleteNot having children makes our lives better?
How many children do you have?
Would your life be 'better' if you had fewer?
Oh, and "church fathers" (whatever that means) opined on condoms? Interesting. And all this time I thought latex was a recent innovation.
ReplyDeleteAside from pure energy, I'm not seeing much from Urbani. Falling back on vague claims like "standing up for life" really should be left to politicking, not theological discussion.
ReplyDeleteAppealing to the teaching of churchmen really isn't persuasive in the way that appealing to scripture is. Scripture is inspired and inerrant, churchmen are not.
The argument that Calvin put forth has been addressed and is found wanting. Perhaps there is another that is better?
I'm interested in hearing it and not just with an antagonistic ear. Vague appeals to historical consensus, though won't be taken seriously.
Urbani, I have six children, and life would be very much tougher than it is right now if I had someone littler than my current little one.
ReplyDelete'Urbani, it's pretty clear you're an unthinking Romanist drone.'
ReplyDeleteName calling? I'll take this as admission that you can make no other argument.
'One more chance to engage the Onan psg in the Bible and to answer my questions, or you can find someone else to talk to.'
Like Calvin, it is express that Onan's act (intent and the act) are a sin.
'Urbani, I have six children, and life would be very much tougher than it is right now if I had someone littler than my current little one.'
ReplyDeleteAnd the Christian life is one where we take up our cross and follow Jesus...to make our lives easier?
Urb,
ReplyDeleteYou're bordering on the Pharasaical here. I respect NFP-ers, I thing the Duggars are a great family, but as far as sex goes a couple has to do what's best for their marriage.
My wife had some health issues a number of years ago and was advised not to have any more children. So we use barrier protection now. Are you telling me that we're living in sin? If so, I contend you must justify that sentiment from the Scriptures. And it's already been pointed out that you are taking the case of Onan out of context (so was Calvin, he's not infallible, dude). Onan's sin was violating the law of levirate marriage, it had nothing to do with where his bodily fluids ended up.
For Calvinists -
ReplyDeleteIs God the author life?
Can a child be born unless God wills it?
I'll take this as admission that you can make no other argument.
ReplyDeleteGiggle. K whatever.
it is express that Onan's act (intent and the act) are a sin.
Yes, but WHY?
Now Urbani is refusing to interact with his erstwhile interlocutors.
ReplyDeleteHe has taken to swinging around a two-edged argument, apparently unaware that it can be used effectively to dispose of his own argument.
Seems like time to invest and engage or go away.
Urbani, yes, I take Ibuprofin when I get a headache.
ReplyDeleteI plan my taxes to make the best use of the legal tax code.
I budget my money so as not to over-spend.
God gives us minds to use in this world, and to enjoy its benefits.
jonah -
ReplyDeleteWhat is the penality for violating this Levertite law?
Hint: Deuteronomy 25:5-10
'Urbani, yes, I take Ibuprofin when I get a headache.'
ReplyDeleteHaving a headache is a curse of the fall. Having children is God's gift to us (or do you disagree?)
'I plan my taxes to make the best use of the legal tax code.'
That is just your civic duty. Not even remotely close to God's miraculous gift of life. Or do you want to argue that the American Tax Code and God's authorship of life are equal?
etc.
I ask again to you Calvinists:
[b]Can a child be born unless God wills it?[/b]
No, nothing occurs apart from God's DECRETIVE will.
ReplyDeleteNow let's all stand back as Urbani unthinkingly equivocates between God's two wills.
Trying to figure out how the human-administered penalty for violating a law has anything to do with God's dropping the hammer of judgment on someone.
ReplyDeleteBTW Judah's family was, well, kinda important to the overall scheme of things. Special case. God did away with Onan's older brother also, for unspecified evil acts. God had to dispense with Onan so that Tamar would be able to have children.
Gee, isn't the Roman magisterium wonderful at teaching it's loyal subjects how to read the Scriptures?
ReplyDeleteI shoulda sent my kid to a Roman school. He could have aced "Bad Hermeneutics 101". :)
Urbani said:
ReplyDeleteNo. Considering that you are expressly going against the teaching of every church father and even Reformed fathers and the christian faith for about 2,000 years you tell me what wearing condoms is ok.
1. Where's the supporting scholarship for such a broad and sweeping contention? If you want to try and convince us with an argument from consensus, produce the relevant supporting documentation. This would be much more effective that resorting to shaming tactics, a supercilious disposition, and tendentious claims that we are arguing against "life."
2. Even if we assume your historical assessment is correct, why are we bound to the alleged historical consensus? Certainly your denomination passes over the consensus of the earliest of church fathers on subjects like Mary's assumption and her immaculate conception, preferring, instead, an appeal to later, "developed" conceptions of doctrine.
3. Jewish scholarship observes that Onan's sin has to do with a failure to uphold the leverate institution. Here is a situation where we might expect a Jewish source to have a more accurate understanding a of passage of Scripture than the "2000 years" of Christians who were often ignorant of Old Testament laws and customs, and even Hebrew itself.
I can happily point to about 450years worth of christian teaching on the subject from Protestant sources alone but I doubt that would persuad you.
No, but it would factor into a decision, I imagine. We might tread more carefully, doubly checking to make sure that our interpretation of Scripture is correct on this matter.
However, trying to have us automatically bound by the conclusions of these individuals is simply a denial of sola Scriptura, and, especially without showing us the supporting scholarship necessary to demonstrate your contention, will be of no interest to those of us who hold to the primacy of Scripture and its governance of even the tradition of Protestantism.
The fact is that so many Christians have simply given in to popular culture and modern anti-life philosophy. A philosophy that treats God's gift of life as something that should be halted.
This is, unfortunately, simply false. There are many components to the anti-life philosophy, as I suspect you are well aware. That we allow the use of some forms of contraception in some cases does not entail an acceptance of the anti-life agenda, either all of its particulars or, most importantly, the philosophical foundation from which it springs.
Of course, I don't think I accept any "anti-life" components, but even according to your standards, it is inappropriate to suggest we have wholly capitulated to the "anti-life" agenda, and that you are the only one here defending "life."
Let me get this straight, the argument runs like this (A-Torodes, B-NFP, C-happy marriage):
ReplyDelete1. A says B will lead to C
2. A renounces B
3. A gets not C
4. Which proves that B doesn't lead to C???
Anybody see an obvious problem in that? Am I missing something? Without #2, it works, but wouldn't it be a more logical conclusion to claim that the cause of #3 is #2 which proves the opposite of #4?
Urbani’s assumption that his understanding of the history of the story of Onan is clearly refuted by Roman Catholic scholarship. The preeminent work on the topic is by the honorable John T. Noonan, Ph.D. (Catholic University of America) in his book entitled, “Contraception: A History of Its Treatments by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists.” (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.) (Noonan carries the appellation “honorable” because he is a sitting judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.)
ReplyDeleteIn tracing the history of Onan, Noonan goes back to the beginning whereby he notes:
”“Was Onan punished for his disobedience, for his lack of family feeling, for his egotism, for his evasion of an obligation assumed, for his contraceptive acts, or for a combination of these faults?…That contraception as such is condemned seems unlikely. There is no commandment against contraception in any of the codes of law.” op. cit., p. 35
So attributing the “sin of contraception” to Onan was historically a misuse of the passage. Noonan documents how a wide variety of other sexual sins were explicitly condemned excluding contraception.
”“It can scarcely be surmised that there was no occasion to legislate on contraception. The story itself shows that coitus interruptus was a practice known by at least the first millenium B.C. The Egyptian documents reflect the practice of contraception in a country that had great cultural influence on the Jews. The people of Israel knew no immunity from the sexual customs of their neighbors. There is explicit post-Exilic legislation against homosexuality, against bestiality, and against temple prostitution (Lv 18:22, 20:13, 20:15-16, Dt 23:18). If these acts had to be prohibited by law, it seems unlikely that, in the absence of clear prohibition, the Jewish people would have believed that coitus interruptus or the use of contraceptives was immoral.” op. cit., P. 35
And Noonan then rightly concludes,
“These considerations – the lack of any commandment, the contrast with other explicit regulations on marriage, the evident need to restrain other forms of sexual misconduct – support the view that contraception is not the act for which Onan was killed. The story nonetheless furnished a striking example by which later commentators, Jewish and Christian, could demonstrate (wrongfully) the sinfulness of contraception.” (op. cit. p. 35 ff).
Contrary to Mr. urbani, Roman Catholic scholarship denies that the proper use of Onan is make the case against contraception.
In fact, to hold the case as urbani does, flies directly in the face of Jerome in the late 4th century:
“Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament followed the Hebrew in Exodus 21:22 and opened the possibility of treating the fetus as at no point of development a human.” op. cit., p. 90
If the fetus, according to this “Father of the Church”, was “at no point…a human” one cannot conclude that anything morally wrong happened when the “seed” from which it developed was spilled.
to be continued....
continued form the previous....
ReplyDeleteThe first specific prohibition against contraception was that written by another church Father, Epiphanius of Salamis. He decried the practice of contraception ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT WAS A GNOSTIC RITUAL. In other words, contraception was part of the worship of the Gnostics and was condemned as such; not because there was anything intrinsically wrong or immoral in the practice.
Noonan gives a snapshot of the early church’s view on the topic:
“There was a general failure to invoke the story of Onan…. Origen expounded Genesis 38 only in an allegorical fashion…St. Ambrose commented on Genesis without alluding to the text. St. John Chrysostom himself spoke of the death of Onan, “who had shown himself to be evil,” without connecting his fault with contraception (Homilies on Genesis 62,1, PG 54:533). St. Ephraem (306-373), a Syrian contemporary of Epiphanius, said that Onan acted out of both hate for his brother and love for Thamar, and was killed for “his bitter trick,”, an explanation with some of the ambiguities of the original text. Only St. Epiphanius gave a plain interpretation of the text as a condemnation of contraception, and he did so only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemic.” op. cit. P. 101.
So neither Origen, nor Chrysostom nor Ephraem read anything about contraception into the story of Onan.
One last point…
As recently as the 19th century, the Roman church was indifferent to the practice of contraception.
“To summarize what has already been noted, the official directives from Rome in the period from the restoration of the Church in France to the end of the reign of Pius IX showed no special concern to combat birth control. There was a marked tolerance of good faith, a tolerance cut short at the point where doctrinal modification appeared to suggest itself. By 1851 a slight stiffening of attitude was perceptible. Cooperation with the condom was strictly forbidden. Some interrogation was urged. Yet as birth control swept France, the Church was not yet its active and tireless adversary.” op. cit., p. 404
In conclusion, urbani’s viewpoint is entirely anachronistic with regard to church history. The story of Onan was used in the early church to support a variety of views, the least of which is the one he espouses. Contracpetion may have been decried by some ECF’s but then only because it involved “medicines” which smacked of witchcraft or because it was part of the ritual worship of the Gnostics. Several “Fathers” of his church – Jerome, Ephiphanius, Alphonsus Liguori – are all in disagreement with urbani and so we should urge him to reconsider his position.
Peace.
to add to the rest of the discussion, a thought to consider regarding the link between abortion and contraception (from Planned Parenthood v. Casey):
ReplyDelete"in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
of course this doesn't prove that the Bible says its wrong...
Brent,
ReplyDeletethis is very true. Even Margarat Sanger and other originators of the abortion movement were at the start very vocal in support of contraception for all of the same reasons they wanted abortion.
Constantine,
ReplyDeleteI kindly and earnestly suggest you read Humanae vitae (setting aside the Onan controversy despite Luther and Calvin's strong contention that it was in fact a prohibition against contraception--which, according to Mr. Shultz, is irrelevant--which is fine).
You can in Catholic theology, like in Protestant theology, find a theologian to say whatever you like. However, unlike Protestantism, we have more than just theologians. That's not a polemical statement, but a statement of fact as a former Protestant. You can argue that as a Protestant you have the authoritative Scriptures, and I can agree with you which changes nothing of my claim, nor does my claim do harm to yours either but only clarifies how you treat my position. So, out of charity, I would not try to appeal to a Protestant theologian to prove to you a position against your claim, and neither is it charitable to quote ad hoc to undermine mine.
Bare in mind, Humanae vitae made quite a few Catholic theologians and bishops upset. The New York times ran a story after it was published with a whole list of American Catholic theologians who apposed it.
Peace in Christ,
Brent
unlike Protestantism, we have more than just theologians
ReplyDeleteNot that the Magisterium steps up to the place to correct them very often. So it's not particularly helpful.
in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception
No, it's not really. This is oft-repeated, and false.
Abortion kills children. Contraception does not.
Constantine:
ReplyDeleteClement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
Augustine
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).
Please cite a single church father who taught that contraception (oral, barrier, spilling) was ok.
Rhology,
ReplyDelete1. Your comment doesn't discredit the difference just in your judgment of how the difference is applied. Like Christ, the Church teaches, doesn't police. We, personally, are accountable for what we do with the truth.
2. That was a supreme court justice writing so you can take it up with him. There is also evidence that oral contraceptives are abortifacient. Nevertheless, the justice wasn't trying to point out that they have the same effects (your contention), but that they have a causal link and a motivational link embedded into the reasons we choose to use them to begin with, namely to prevent babies being born. Moreover, abortion acts as the "safety net" for failed contraception.
We, personally, are accountable for what we do with the truth.
ReplyDeleteSo there's really no difference, then.
We can listen to the Scriptures, or we can listen to the Scriptures and the RCC. Epistemologically, they're on the same playing field.
I just don't know where you see some advantage.
There is also evidence that oral contraceptives are abortifacient
I know; I mentioned that above and have specifically been asking about barrier methods.
See, that's because I'm interested in abolishing human abortion, but I don't care much if they just want to have fun during married sex.
they have a causal link and a motivational link embedded into the reasons we choose to use them to begin with, namely to prevent babies being born.
That's so contrived, it's amazing. There's just one teensy little detail you left out of the analysis - babies are humans, and sperm are sperm.
Moreover, abortion acts as the "safety net" for failed contraception.
Not if you're consistent with the view that life begins at conception.
Brent cites Planned Parenthood claiming the following,
ReplyDelete"in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception,"
and concurs with their opinion.
Now disregarding the fact that the former involves murder while the latter does no such thing, you mean they're the same in the respect that both separate intercourse from procreation, correct?
You then cite the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Augustine saying,
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature"
and
"In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion."
So these fathers represent your position? And yet you miss the irony of promoting NFP which is done with the exact same intent and effect as any of the barrier methods.
Come back to us when you and your magisterium renounce NFP, and then, although we'll still disagree with you, you'll at least spare yourself the charge of rank hypocrisy.
"So these fathers represent your position? And yet you miss the irony of promoting NFP which is done with the exact same intent and effect as any of the barrier methods.
ReplyDeleteCome back to us when you and your magisterium renounce NFP, and then, although we'll still disagree with you, you'll at least spare yourself the charge of rank hypocrisy."
Ree - that is ridiculous.
With NFP, every single time a married couple has sexual union the union is procreative (open to life) and unitive (two becoming one flesh). Not so with contraceptives.
This is the teaching of the church. Sexual union is procreative and unitive. This is the biblical teaching. Having union without one or the other is against nature.
Surely you can see the difference.
Not so with contraceptives.
ReplyDeleteUnless the condom breaks.
Unless the NFP timing was off.
Yes, same thing. Nice try.
The levity continues.
ReplyDeleteUrbani fails to recognize that his argument has been summarily deflated. Consensus itself proves nothing and there has, in fact, been no consensus on the point he is making. This doesn't deter him from doing damage to his argument by pointing out further evidence of the non-consensus. Now we can argue about which Church Father was more authoritative, when we could just look to the Scripture ourselves. No matter; carry on.
Simultaneously, the main force of Brent's argument hangs on the flattening of the term "contraception" so as to remove all distinctiveness between the various methods. He tries to distribute the load by calling in documents from the Vatican, which, unfortunately doesn't help his case.
So again we find that the "sex for children only" crowd appeals only to sources outside the scripture to make their point. Mores the pity, since it is the Scripture that sets the standard to faith and practice.
These fallacies are growing tiresome. Arguments from authority and association fallacies abound. Just because a church father or a Supreme Court justice says it, doesn't make it true. The church fathers were wrong on some issues, so were the reformers. I like reading Augustine but I certainly think he was off base on certain things.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads the Scriptures in support of the idea that sex is for procreation only, is bringing his own traditional bias into the text. A simple reading of I Cor. 7 dispels this notion. The marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4)
The Roman church can't tolerate Christian liberty; they have to have a rule for everything. This is no different that the arguments over drinking alcohol, playing cards, etc.
"Actually, the pill is abortifacient..."
ReplyDeleteDepends on the pill. Blanket statements reveal ignorance.
I'd be interested in knowing which one(s) do(es) not include abortifacient effects, such as thinning the placental lining such that the zygote cannot implant.
ReplyDeleteRhology,
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing the nature of the knowers versus the nature of the knowledge known. I recommend this article, if you desire to carefully consider the epistemological difference between a Catholic and a Protestant. What I'm differentiating is the difference between how Protestants and Catholics view Authority--which we both admit. It wasn't a general point, but was specifically to address Constantine's "quotes" since he was arguing from Catholic authority so as to undermine Urbani's position. (the shoe can fit on both feet)
Ree,
I cited the Supreme Court in the court case PP v. Casey, not Planned Parenthood, as food for thought not the fait accompli.
Mr. Fosi,
I'm right here, so if you intended to talk to me you can address me directly. I'm in your golf crowd. My link to a Vatican document wasn't to prove anything to anyone here, since you have already admitted that authorities don't prove anything, but to prove Constantine's misuse of the concept of Catholic authority. That clarification has no baring on your personal theology, but could serve to improve your ability to represent the Catholic position, so as to not make the gross errors of Constantine.
Gents, I'm bowing out. Thanks for the opportunity to chat. I wish you the best in discerning God's will for your life and pray that through a careful study of Scripture you will come into the Truth.
Peace in Christ,
Brent
was specifically to address Constantine's "quotes" since he was arguing from Catholic authority so as to undermine Urbani's position. (the shoe can fit on both feet)
ReplyDeleteBrent,
If y'all RCs want us to take this kind of demurral seriously, then stop quoting "church fathers" (whatever that means) as authorities.
You may not engage in that practice. If not, good on ya. You're a very small minority.
"Anyone who reads the Scriptures in support of the idea that sex is for procreation only..."
ReplyDeleteNobody said that sex is for procreation [b]only.[/b]
"The Roman church can't tolerate Christian liberty; they have to have a rule for everything."
Simply false.
"This is no different that the arguments over drinking alcohol, playing cards, etc."
You gloss the gift of life, Jonah. A thread I see with all of you is that human life is just kind of ho hum, like playing cards or having a headache.
I am bowing out too.
Holy Spirit please enlighten all souls and quicken our hearts to seek to do your will.
"With NFP, every single time a married couple has sexual union the union is procreative (open to life) and unitive (two becoming one flesh). "
ReplyDeleteThe intent of NFP is to avoid pregnancy or to choose the timing of becoming pregnant. The motivation is the same as using other contraceptives.
"The intent of NFP is to avoid pregnancy or to choose the timing of becoming pregnant. The motivation is the same as using other contraceptives."
ReplyDeleteAnd? Do you argue that all means are equal if the intent is the same (or similar?)
My neighbor's dog keeps me up at night with barking. I can talk to my neighbor about it in hopes that he will take his dog indoors or I can shoot the dog with my shotgun. Same intent. Different means.
The procreative (and unitive in the case of condoms) aspect of sexual union is absent when contracepting. It is present with couple practicing NFP.
OK - must get to airport. Have good weekend.
ReplyDeleteThose who "bow out" after being shown that their argumentation is shoddy, have admitted they lost the debate.
ReplyDeleteQED
It seems to me that some here believe the best rhetorical method is to ignore the parts of your opponent's argument that undermine your own and simply restate your premises and conclusions trusting that observers will be enough blinded by their own bias so as not to notice that central points-of-argument go uncontested. Unfortunately, that which is most effective in rhetoric is rarely that which effective in actual argumentation... Even less so when it goes on in print.
ReplyDeleteOf course, given that the Scriptures are the definitive for what is God's will, I am fairly sure that I have the discernment of such ironed out via John 6 and other sundry bits of Scripture. I am rather glad that no believer need rely on mystical self-examination or the pronouncement of men to determine the will of God for them.
And so at least one of our Catholic interlocutors has departed leaving central points argument unanswered, but I suppose that is the best that can be done when participants cannot agree on basic presuppositions. Farewell and godspeed. May you be found in Christ when judgement comes.
"Nobody said that sex is for procreation [b]only.[/b]"
ReplyDeleteYes, someone did. Both of the church fathers you cited said it, and you cited them as supporters of your position. Clement said it most explicitly with the statement,
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
"With NFP, every single time a married couple has sexual union the union is procreative (open to life) and unitive (two becoming one flesh). Not so with contraceptives.
This is the teaching of the church. Sexual union is procreative and unitive. This is the biblical teaching. Having union without one or the other is against nature."
I don't dispute that marriage is designed as procreative and unitive. I dispute that every single act of intercourse is both. Marital intercourse is always unitive, but it is not always procreative, whether one wishes it to be or not.
And one is no more "open to life" by planning intercourse around the times when procreation is virtually certain not to occur than one is by using a barrier. And one is no less "open to life" if one is committed to carrying a pregnancy to term and bearing a child if the chosen method of contraception (whether NFP or a condom) fails.
If I tell a friend that I'm open to visiting with her, but I make a point of carefully studying her periods (no pun intended) of unavailability and I only make myself available at those times, my friend would have good reason to take offense, and to conclude that I'm not so open after all. That's the kind of "openness" that NFP practices.
And after all that, the only matter of substance on the table is a link to a discussion of a fundamentally irrelevant issue--how Catholic and Protestant conceptions of authority and epistemology differ.
ReplyDeleteThe critical concerns left untouched are Urbani's contention about the interpretation of the Onan account and his broad, sweeping claims about the universal opinion of Christians on this matter. I have yet to see in this discussion, from either Urbani or Brent, relevant exegesis of Biblical texts or a logical and factual defense of an appeal to this alleged historical consensus on the topic of contraception. Constantine's particular attempt to direct the conversation to the historical record was completely dismissed for reasons that, even if they were not dubious in their own right (for the purpose of the appeal to a Catholic seemed to be one of making the evidence more palatable, rather than citing a binding authority), have no bearing on the actual historical evidenced cited, or the lack of historical evidence cited by Urbani.
If I tell a friend that I'm open to visiting with her, but I make a point of carefully studying her periods (no pun intended) of unavailability and I only make myself available at those times, my friend would have good reason to take offense, and to conclude that I'm not so open after all. That's the kind of "openness" that NFP practices.
ReplyDeleteThis analogy fails because in NFP you still 'see your friend' all the time.
The bible arguments - it has already been demonstrated that those will be rejected regardless. While Onan sinned by breaking the Levetical law he also sinned by spilling his seed. This interpretation carries the weight of virtual any father who wrote about it.
I wonder how the consensus of the forbearers of the faith can so cavalierly be dismissed.
There is contention from Matthew that Urbani's claim about church history is unfounded Can Matthew or anybody else cite any church father or council document in support of purposefully spilling seed or contraception? If you can't, and he can quote fathers to the contrary, I think his point stands. That prior to the 19th century the Catholic Church did not have many statements against birth control only highlights that prior to the 19th century most Christians understood this in good faith. There was no need for proclamations.
I don't think Urbani needs to prove that EVERY church father wrote against it. That would be ludicrous yet it seems to be the standard against which he is held.
Lastly, this is my first time to the blog but if name calling and simple lack of charity is the way visitors with differing viewpoints are treated here than no wonder people ‘bow out.’
in NFP you still 'see your friend' all the time.
ReplyDelete"Seeing your friend" in this context was obviously analogous to intercourse. So, no, you don't.
While Onan sinned by breaking the Levetical law he also sinned by spilling his seed.
Prove he sinned by spilling his seed. That's kind of the point here.
I wonder how the consensus of the forbearers of the faith can so cavalierly be dismissed.
Maybe because we care about what God said and care slightly less about what men said?
Matthew: The critical concerns left untouched are Urbani's contention about the interpretation of the Onan account and his broad, sweeping claims about the universal opinion of Christians on this matter. I have yet to see in this discussion, from either Urbani or Brent, relevant exegesis of Biblical texts or a logical and factual defense of an appeal to this alleged historical consensus on the topic of contraception.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good place to end it. I'm grateful for those of you on the Protestant side who stepped in to comment. I'm having one of those days at work and just can't get to this.
Comments for this thread will be closed.