Thursday, February 09, 2017

Social teaching

I am not a Roman Catholic and not a huge fan of much Roman Catholic theology. But I had long thought that, when it came to social teaching and hard-headed moral thinking, the Roman Catholic Church was light years ahead of most Protestants in both sophistication and precision.

It's hard to know what to make of Trueman's terse statement.

i) Many "social justice" positions taken by the current Magisterium are interchangeable with the platform of the Democrat Party. Perhaps Trueman's position is affected by the fact that he's English. In general, conservative Americans are quite hostile to the welfare state, but perhaps that's something which differentiates them from Trueman. I'm not suggesting that the English automatically support the welfare state. Maggie Thatcher was a notable critic, but she was controversial for that very reason. Indeed, she may be more popular among American conservatives than many Britons. Peter Hitchens disdains her, although Roger Scruton admires her. 

ii) I wonder how conversant Trueman is regarding evangelical ethicists. Perhaps this reflects Trueman's disdain for evangelicalism–in contrast to "confessional Calvinism". There are sophisticated expositions of personal and social ethics, viz. John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics; John and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for A Brave New World; John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life; John Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems.

iii) It's true that Catholic ethicists can argue with great precision and sophistication, but to what end? Their job is not to ascertain right and wrong, but to defend whatever the Magisterium deems to be right and wrong. They begin with the diktats of Rome, then cast about for supporting arguments to retroactively rationalize a foregone conclusion. And it can take tremendous ingenuity to defend Catholic moral theology. Consider the hairsplitting distinctions that are required to attack artificial contraception while defending natural family planning. Or to attack divorce while defending annulment, or to attack lying while defending mental reservations. Perhaps, though, Trueman is using "social teaching" in a narrow sense, rather than Catholic moral theology in general. Even so, Catholic social teaching reflects misplaced precision and sophistication. Not sophisticated analysis to arrive at the truth, but sophisticated special pleading to justify whatever Rome says. Not precision to be conceptually accurate, but precision to draw ad hoc distinctions.  


  1. I'm going through the catechism, and the part about contraception and natural family planning does baffle me. It says that the purpose of sex should be procreative, and that's why contraception is wrong. Yet, it supports natural family planning.

    On the social teaching, I'm trying to process that, as well. A lot of it looks like things that progressives typically say. But, then again, there is the concept of subsidiarity, which seems to imply the priority of small, local institutions. That sounds rather conservative, from an American perspective.

  2. John--

    All of the Protestant Reformers were anti-contraceptive. All Protestant denominations until 1930 were anti-contraceptive. It makes one wonder if somewhere along the way, we succumbed to the pressure of the culture. Many, many Evangelicals couldn't care less if their particular mode of contraceptive is abortifacient.

    Subsidiarity (and distributivism) are indeed akin to Conservative calls for "states' rights." And Solidarity is in diametrically opposed to the Left's beloved multiculturalism. They are, quite clearly, solid allies in the culture wars. Staying the course against abortion and the same-sex agenda. Democrats DO NOT enlist the services of traditional Catholics. Are you crazy?

    The principal forbearer of American conservatism, Edmund Burke, was one of the principal drivers of Catholic Emancipation in Great Britain. The founder of American conservatism, Russell Kirk, was a traditional Catholic and a distributivist (not unlike G. K. Chesterton). The dean of American conservatism was William F. Buckley, a devout Catholic. And what of Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Rick Santoram, and Antonin Scalia?

    As for the welfare system, Catholic social teaching is for it, but only under the rubrik of "a hand up, not a handout." That's middle-of-the-road Republicanism. They embrace just war theory and accept the validity of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

    No traditional Catholic can vote Democratic, let alone run for office, without sacrificing every shread of the integrity of their convictions.

    Now, quit with your mindless vendetta, and let me off the hook. I can't stand Catholicism and don't wish to be forced into the uncomfortable position of having to defend it. Their hypocrisy knows few limits, as you all are pointing out with contraception, annulments, divorce and remarriage, etc.

    Go ahead and keep up the heat: just keep it accurate!

    1. @zigger: I think Steve did a bang-up job rather than a "mindless vendetta." Agree or disagree with him, he has thought his positions out and articulated them clearly; ie there is no mindlessness to be found anywhere in this blog.

      Let's look at a few of your statements, especially your quip about Protestants and contraception. During the Reformation there was a hot debate in medical circles about the location of the homunculus; ie the little man that was either located in semen or ova. To practice contraception - which back then meant either onanism or abortion - was to kill a man. The actual facts brhind reproduction were unknown; do you think that that might have had some influence on the university-trained reformers? One need not capitulate to the general culture by reexamining positions based upon factual error. Besides, what is natural family planning other than the same desire to dodge the consequences of sexual intercourse as one whi uses non-abortifacient contraceptives? The only real difference is in the efficacy of the methods.

      As far as distributivism goes, it's nothing more than socialism lite. The papists despise the common man, having what Sowell calls "the vision of the annointed," and find the idea of the democracy of the free market unpalatable...just as they would presbyterial polity. There is nothing to be learned from it.

      Per the papish conservatives you mentioned, please note that Burke was an Anglican. Buckley liked big government so he could watch Materpiece Theatre sans commercial interruptions. There have been prominent papish conservatives - don't forget the nin-distributivist Sowell - but there have been many more of them working for the Left. Your point?

      The Welfare State fits popery like a glove, given the Babylonish Whore's meddling at every stage of life and beyond (ie Purgatory). The whole welfare scam started out with the sucker-bait of "a hand up, not a handout," and look where we are now! Funny how the more you have, the more you need, isn't it? Add the corrections debacle to the picture and you end up with a system designed to keep people down, dumb, and dependent. What Christian thinker wants any part of that?! Mighty white of them to agree with Scripture on just warfaree and capital punishment.

      You can have your traddies. They might make for warm bodies at pro-life rallies and good election day turnouts, but you can have their inveterate antisemitism and whack-job conspiracy theories. In fine, they are at best co-belligerents but can never be true allies.

      As far as defending Catholics, have you ever considered stopping? Try reading some Sowell, Mises, and other real social thinkers who aren't trying to candy-coat government control...and do keep it accurate ;-)

    2. Kirk--

      I love the website and their incredible output. Always something new to peruse. A great deal of the sharpest of insights, but more than a modicum of unthought-out emotionalism, as well.

      Did we still not know the facts in 1930 when Protestants started to renege on centuries of anti-contraceptive practices? I haven't studied all the ins and outs of their history, but oral contraceptives were embraced for their convenience, not their ethical neutrality.

      Distributivism is more decentralized than any other system, making it the exact opposite of socialism. Calling Russell Kirk a "socialist" is also a hoot. Catholicism is in no way against the "common man." We Protestants could stand to emulate some of the ways in which they minister to the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant. They are only against the excesses of Capitalism. They do not see "greed as good." Do you?

      Yes, Burke was Church of Ireland. I didn't say different. I said he worked toward Catholic Emancipation. You sound like you'd like them ghettoized. I don't know a single traditional Catholic working for the Left. Sounds oxymoronic to me. EWTN made it very clear during this past election campaign that voting Democratic was unconscionable.

      Catholicism is very much against keeping people down, dumb, and dependent. They don't send their kids to public school. They are more for welfare reform than the Republican Party (which likes to tax and spend every chance they get to pull the wool over people's eyes).

      So, are you talking past or current antisemitism? Our Protestant heritage doesn't exactly have clean hands on that score, starting with Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies." Don't know what you mean by conspiracy theories.

      I take it you despise government "control." Does that mean you'd like to privatize the military? Most of us like the assistance of government when we like it. When it helps us rather than someone else. Very Christian.

      Do you give to charitable causes? Do you have any idea how much the church would have to up the ante in order to cover what government covers? Are you indifferent toward those who are poor through no fault of their own? Most conservatives say they are not. But they don't want the difference to come from their own pocketbooks.

      (Most socialism is utterly wrongheaded in its motivations and administered about as poorly as is possible. That doesn't mean socialism is inherently bad, especially if done at the local level.)

      I actually like Sowell, a great deal, in fact.

      Oh, and I'll stop defending Catholics just as soon as you stop misrepresenting them.

  3. @zigger: I'll get right to it:
    1. contraception: why someone ensues or eschews a practice is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is whether or not Scripture forbids contraception (vs abortion).
    2. distributivism depends on something other than the free market to set prices and wages; that something else is a committee of poobahs. The doctrine also allows for the state to seize someone's property if their nibs decide that it isn't being used for redeeming social importance. Sounds like socialism lite to me.
    3. papistry and the common man: his job is to "pray, pay, and obey;" when the church wants his opinion she'll give it to him.
    3. ministering to the poor: the concept of Biblical charity is beyond a blog posting, but Prots can hardly be described as stingy. Of course, we don't have the massive amounts of money fleeced from peasants via works-righteousness guilt-manipulation and Purgatory, the latter which is definitely robbing widows.
    4. greed is good: never said or implied it, but I stand with Will Rogers in longer for a return of liberalism to being generous with one's own money.
    5. Burke: a tolerant Anglican who didn't buy the Roman notion that error has no rights.
    6. ghettoizing papists: never said or implied it; that's just low-ball abusive ad hominem. The difficulties faced by free churches in countries hag-ridded by the triple tiara is something you should investigate.
    7. papists and the Left: there are tons of them (eg Nancy Pelousy); if I included traddies in that category it was due to lack of clear writing on my part. I should have included traddies in the alt right, loonies like Santorum, SSPX, &c.
    8. down, dumb, and dependent: failing to teach the flock the fundamentals of Scripture rather than a feudalistic religious system of works-righteousness. That their schools are better than the public schools speaks more about the decrepitude of public schools than the quality of papist schools. Of course, Proddies have been very active in homeschooling, and more and more papists are getting on board, so your quip is a false dichotomy.
    9. antisemitism: inseparable from being traddie; just read their literature and you get the notion of a vast world-wide Masonic-Jewish conspiracy (whack-job theory referenced above). The Lutheran church shelved Luther's antisemitic tract and never acted upon it; sorry to have to admit it, but the Reformed have been light-years ahead of us Lutherans in their attitude towards Jews...which has always been light-years ahead of the papists., Those great distributivists Chesterton and Belloc even went so far as to suggest forcing Jews back into ghettos and requiring Arab dress!
    10. messianic state: military is a proper government function, whkile managing my speech and associations is not. Bloody awful example you gave, especially because I think you're intelligent enough to know what I meant. I never asked for a hand-out, and the only help I want from the government is to help me keep my own money to use as I desire.
    11. my charitable giving: none of your bloody business. Do you know how much more active the church could be if its people weren't so heavily taxed? Do you know that churched folks outgive others? Are you indifferent to your brothers and sisters who struggle to home/private/parochial school their children while having to pay for the fiscal black hole that is public education? Closet libs like to cover their agenda in God smack and covenant jive, but down deep they support the messianic state and act like "give us this day our daily bread" was addressed to Caesar. BTW I'm a libertarian.
    12. socialism is always bad because it depends upon the arm of the state; local cooperative efforts thrive only because they exist within a capitalist milieu.
    13. Sowell rules!
    14. I've misrepresented nobody; we disagree about the interpretation of the data.

  4. Kirk--

    1. Does Scripture forbid pedophilia? No! When questions of sexual ethics are left unaddressed in the Sacred Text, we must assume the Jewish status quo for that time period. Contraception was not allowed. In fact, parenting children was more or less mandated for the married. End of story. (In modern Orthodox Judaism, the use of condoms is seen as a form of Onanism. One may employ processes similar to NFP to space, but not to avoid having, children.)

    2. There are different forms of distributivism. The Free Market may be employed. Property rights are paramount. Everybody is to have property, not just the privileged few.

    3a. Libertarians and the common man's suffering: "Their p!ight is not the reponsibility of government." Do I give personally? "None of your bloody business!"

    James 1:27. "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

    3b. Evangelicals give approximately 3% of their income to charitable causes, including their church. Mormons do much better. You're right though. (Pseudo-)Liberals like to give away other people's money but cannot be bothered to give any of their own.

    4. I wasn't quoting you, but Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) from the film "Wall Street."

    5. Agreed, I was stressing the tolerance.

    6. I was just ragging you about your use of disparaging epithets. It's hard to take someone else seriously--as a thinker who can be fair and objective--when they are calling others the "Whore of Babylon."

    7. Yes, there are tons of them on the Left...and you know very well that none these people are anywhere close to being orthodox. They are Catholic in name only. The Vatican has come down hard on most forms of Socialism, especially Liberation Theology.

    8. The dichotomy was between secular Socialists, who keep people willfully "down, dumb, and dependent" and Catholicism.

    9. The man you unequivocally term antisemitic (Chesterton) was also a staunch Zionist and once said, "I will die defending the last Jew in Europe." Jesse Jackson's depiction of NYC as Hymietown was not just a reflection of his antisemitism. Jews have not always been nothing but "sweetness and light."

    10. Chesterton wrote: "We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty." You make it sound like patriots ought not think of their beloved country as an interwoven community, held together by both rights and responsibilities, but as a conglomeration of unassociated free individuals.

    11. Yeah, right. In talking about biblical ethics, your charitable giving is none of my bloody business. Self-centered much? I tend to think of Libertarianism as one of the least Christian of our political options. In order to make up for what government currently provides to the needy, churches would have to give 100 times as much as they are.

    12. Any centralized system (socialism, federalism, monarchy) is only as good or bad as the actual people (or person) in charge. I'll admit, however, that historically, good centralized systems are few and far between. Ours is such a mixed economy, a thorough blend of capitalism and socialism. Perhaps that's good. We just need to get the balance right...and to find a way for people of integrity to successfully run for office.

    13. I don't always agree with Sowell, but I honestly respect the man and learn from his writings.

    14. I'll certainly agree that we disagree, but you are so flat-out wrong in some of your characterizations of Rome that describing them as "misrepresentations" is completely warranted.

    1. Let's revisit:
      1. dodge & deflect when you can't answer: does Scripture forbid contraception or doesn't it? Can hoary customary understandings be based upon reasoning no longer valid?
      2. all distributivism hangs upon something other than the fre market setrting prices and wages? who iso enlightend that his (or thieir) words should be valued above others? Howsabout "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet?"
      3. there is also no government role for poor relief in Scripture. the only role of got is in enforcing contracts and preventing encroachment; don't you believe in ngo's? again, ngo's would have more support if people had to pay less in taxation. Your Scripture example is addressed to individuals in the church - certainly not to Caesar; context is key.
      6 It's hard to take someone else seriously when he is ignorant of how Protestantism has historically pictured Rome; read WCF and FC for the very phrases I used to describe papistry and the papacy ("...Antichrist, that man of sin..."). It is a false religion, and you're not the noble broadminded fellow for thinking otherwise. Are you Reformed?
      8. Bergoglio's the pope now, hence *most* forms of socialism
      9. *was* is the key word here, and his Zionism was a peaceful alternative to the Final Solution to an alleged "Jewish problem" which both he and Belloc perceived. NO people are all sweetness and light, so I'm not sure about the relevance of your observation. May be you perceive there to be a "Jewish problem" too?
      10.. and your point is? how does that go from individual charity to forceful redistribution of the wealth of others? Since when is charity in any meaningful sense a function of paying taxes? Be charitable and keep your hands out of others' pockets.
      11. self-centered completely? I tend to think of socialism as as the least Christian of our political options because it is the most opposed to Biblical mandates on government, is completely divorced from human nature, has no clear boundary between it and communism, and vastly empowers government against the rights of the individual; its "help" has created nothing but dependency and blight. Christian aid, on the other hand...
      12. ...but some are more inherently evil than others. We need no admixture of man-made socialism and divinely-mandated capitalism, but free markets for free men.
      13. agreed
      14. You are so flat-out wrong in all of your characterizations of Rome that describing them as "misrepresentations" is ocompetely warranted

    2. "zinger 1. Does Scripture forbid pedophilia? No!"

      Actually, I'd say it's implicitly forbidden. In Scripture, sex is discussed in relation to couples who are old enough to make babies.

      "When questions of sexual ethics are left unaddressed in the Sacred Text, we must assume the Jewish status quo for that time period."

      That may be what you do, but that's an unreliable rule of thumb. If Scripture is truly silent on an issue, we fall back on extrabiblical reason and evidence. And if that doesn't settle the issue, it's a point of liberty.

      "Contraception was not allowed."

      You constantly disregard the rationale for that.

      "(In modern Orthodox Judaism, the use of condoms is seen as a form of Onanism. One may employ processes similar to NFP to space, but not to avoid having, children.)"

      Which is ad hoc, for reasons I describe.

    3. 1. Scripture prohibits rape and sodomy; children can't consent hence rape - even the Orthodox Jews know that (see below). As for remarriage after unscriptural divorce (of the offending party, of course), I'm not a prooftexter so I don't buy your hermeneutic. I need some clearer exegesis of Christ's words before I come down on the issue...which, again, I have yet to do.

      2. I've given the basis for older prohibition of contraception in a previous reply; ie homunculus theory. By strict definition, a man having intercourse with his lawful postmenopausal wife is also onanism; I don't think either of us are ready to go there. The orthodox also have no problem with the pill, having a very legalistic mindset (ie how is insemination of a woman whose ovulation was suppressed not the same as onanism?) like the papists - and for the same reason.

  5. Kirk--

    1. Ah, so you're one of those who cannot abide an honest answer if it's not quite definitive enough for you and throws out silly accusations wrongly accusing the other's motivations! Good to know. Ancient Israelite understandings of sexual ethics could not possibly be based in divine revelation unless enshrined in Holy Writ, is that your stance? They merely REASONED themselves into positions against pedophilia and contraception. The verse which commands them to "be fruitful and multiply" was taken very seriously. Men supposed to have two children at the very least. Large families were encouraged, they were a BLESSING! Barrenness was seen as a curse. Read your OT again, and you'll see a milieu far different from our current one discouraging the "burden" of children. Add Scriptural leanings to the clearcut Christian practice--Protestant and Catholic--for two centuries and you have a position of presumption.

    2. What does FREE Market mean to you anyway? One without any governmental regulation whatsoever? Where it NECESSARILY takes money to make money? Where the Captains of Industry hold all the cards and are the only ones enjoying this so-called "freedom," forming monopolies, and leaving the workers in squalor and misery (but that's OK because the peons technically have the opportunity to do the same if they're wily enough and ruthless enough and scrappy enough)?

    3. I'll gladly campaign for fewer taxes when your church starts giving 100 times what it's giving now. What do you think the Temple coffers were...wherein the widow puts her mite...if not "governmental" coffers for the needy (among other things). There was no separation of church and state back then. Rome was an overlord, but didn't perform the duties of local government. Someone computed all of the "tithes" of the OT together and came to the figure of something like 23% of income which the people gave to church authorities.

    6. I don't think my language needs to be as salty as Luther's in order to effectively combat the dangers of Catholicism. The fact that they are closer to us than sometimes portrayed actually makes them MORE of a threat in my mind. The good is the enemy of the best. And the good can be more of a temptation for the under-catechised. ("That shiny apple doesn't look half bad, Mr. Serpent, sir.") I think the WCF goes overboard in terms of negative language, but I acknowledge that even Scripture says things like "whited sepulchres" and the "Synagogue of Satan."

    8. The "socialisms" active today are all secular (if not downright anti-Chtistian), and I certainly oppose them. I miss your point on Francis...though he is a decided step down from his immediate predecessors.

    1. 1. I have four kids of my own, so I'm not following your (false) logic by which you judge my motives.
      2. a free market means what it says, with the govt interfering only to enforce contracts and prevent encroachment. Whom do you want holding the cards: bureaucrats, apparatchiks, commissars? I certainly don't want a system providing equal poverty for all..except for the scoundrels mentioned above. I don't want people kept down, dumb, and dependent by largesse forcibly taken from productive citizens.
      3. Money placed in the temple coffers was placed voluntarily and according to different causes (see Edersheim's /The Temple/ on the trumpets). The state had no say in the distribution of the wealth so collected, or even warrant to enforce collection and distribution. Gleaning laws help the poor tor proved food for themselves; they gleaned tghe fields, not bank accounts. I'm waiting for the day when I pay 23% tax and am not holding my breath.
      6. My language isn't salty, but using Biblical metaphor; is the Bible too salty for you? Did the authors of the Reformed and Lutheran symbols hear of the tortures and see the immolations of their brethren? Remember the "intemperate" Knox was an escaped Spanish galley slave and Luther's life hung by a thread; their disapprobation of Rome is quite understandable. I fail to see why we should honor our forebears' persecutor by describing it as what it is not; ie a church of Christ. Then again, I subscribe to the FC; what is your approach to WCF?
      8. Bergoglio is no friend of capitalism and has run his mouth on economic topics of which he is blatantly ignorant.

    2. addendum: 2. I also don't want the poor hurt by aid subsidizing sinful lifestyles, which is not the love of neighbor Scripture enjoins.

  6. Kirk (continued)--

    9. Evidently, according to you, all racial and ethnic stereotypes are pulled out of a hat at random, and there is no basis in truth to them whatsoever. Scots are almost universally generous spend thrifts. Scandinavians are warm and gregarious down to the last man, woman, and child. Gypsies never steal. African-American males have never been known to be violent in the least. And you will never see a single one at KFC. I have never yet met a Jewish banker or lawyer or jeweler.... The fact that Jesse Jackson quickens his step when he detects a group of young, black males behind him must make him inherently racist. That Walt Williams had the audacity to express that he felt uncomfortable when he saw Arabs on some of his flights SHOULD have gotten him fired.

    If we EVER reach a solution to redemptive racial relations it will come through people living in the real world. Yes, I have a problem with the stiff-necked Jewish people...just as God did. And yet I fiercely love them...just as God did.

    I'm one of those absolute idiots who is firmly Reformed soteriologically, but is less firm on some other distinctives (such as the regulative principle and strict sabbatarianism). Semper reformanda.

    10. It is not YOUR pocket. (We give Thee but Thine own, whate'er the gift may be. All that we have is Thine alone, a trust, O Lord, from Thee.)

    You don't make money in a vacuum, completely on your own (unless you're a counterfeiter). You have allegiances to God, to country, to community, to family, to neighbor, and even to the sojourning stranger. Some people pay taxes gladly, with a charitable heart. It is such a shame so much of it is wasted. I have no problem with charities and NGO's stepping up to the plate. Step away. Let's make the need for government intervention obsolete. But you're living in fantasy land if you think it already is.

    11. There is no huge chasm between the charitable giving or governments, corporations, NGO's, and individuals. It can be done well or badly in any case. Socialisms, as I said above, as currently exercised, are blatantly antichristian. That doesn't mean they HAVE to be. Libertarianism, if uncharacteristically conservative on social issues (prostitution, drugs, abortion, homosexuality), CAN take on a Christian form, as well.

    12. Is there a single country ANYWHERE in the world where Free Markets reign supreme, uncurbed by government regulation? I think not. Evidently, no one shares your enthusiasm. We tried that. It didn't work.

    14. Name a single item wherein I am mistaken, and we can go at it. May the best man win.

    1. 9. no, I never said anything like that. It's one thing to discuss a Scots ethnic behavior, but quite a different one denying them the right to dress as and live where they please, or deporting them and making the lives of the recalcitrant unpleasant. Papistry has never successfully separated itself from Judenhass; the traddier, the more bigoted.
      10. so if you are mugged, you don't expect to receive your money back because it's God's? Doesn't the 8th Commandment establish the right ot property? YOu previously praied distributivism, which has some recognition fo property rights; doe we have such rights, or is all property God's as well? He gave us the world for us to steward; this is not in oposition to private proerty. From the Reformed perspective, you might be interested in reading on sphere sovereignty. Step away and let's let ngo's and idividuals do the work of charity without having to compete with Uncle Sam; you're living in a fantasy land if you think the government will relinquish power back to the people it was formed to serve. Christian socialism? An oxymoron.
      11. the gap separating private from government aid makes Dives'chasm look like a drainage ditch. One is charity given voluntarily to the benefit of the recipient while the other is an entitlement robbed from a productive citizen.
      are there countries where government-run economies were unmitigated by capitalism? Yes, and they were and all dunghills. Wew've tried government interference and it has failed spectacularly.
      14. your charity towards the Babylonish Whore is the one that comes to mind. Your own symbols call it a Synagogue of Satan and its pontiff Antichrist that man of sin; are they wrong? Why do they so speak? If they speak truly, why do you honor Rome by calling a church?

  7. Kirk--

    1. All oral contraceptives are potentially abortifacient. Rabbinic Judaism saw/sees condom use as Onanism. What form of contraceptive are you endorsing?

    1. since I have no interest in what Orthodox Judaism prscribes, barrier methods, tl, and vasectomy pose no threat to a fetus.