The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Who Still Fights Against Contraception?

Go back about 50 years and you'll see that Catholics and Protestants stood shoulder to shoulder on the issue of the use of contraceptives during sex. The Catholic Church remains intransigent on this issue, but it seems that most mainline Protestants no longer speak out on this issue. It appears that they have abdigated this issue as one that is personal and requires no censure from the pulpit. This brings up a few questions.

1. If the moral issue of contraceptive use can be recategorized as a personal issue that the church cannot speak on, what trend does this set for other personal behaviors?

2. Is there any significant corner of Protestantism that still speaks boldly and expressly on this issue, not by just having it encoded in their platform, but actively opposed from the pulpit?

3. As the late Blessed John Paul's encyclical on the Theology of the Body beautifully illustrated the Catholic Church's position on contraceptives, can Protestants also form a compelling argument on which once again take a stand against the proliferation of contraceptives?

Also posted on:
http://forum.bible-discussion.com/s...st-Contraception&p=342932#post342932
http://www.lds.net/forums/general-d...ts-against-contraception.html#post597423

a. Your reference to 50 years ago where Protestants and Catholics allegedly stood together on the issue of contraceptives... is far too broad a statement and is therefore subject to much misunderstanding. At that time most Protestants were not opposed to contraception in general but rather certain TYPES of contraceptives. The truth is that most were opposed to the use of "abortifacients", i.e., anything that caused the destruction of a fertilized egg, e.g., IUD, etc. That would include today such things as the "Morning After Pill" and similar abortifacients, which are rightly considered a form of abortion as the name implies.

b. In traditional, historic Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist churches you can find this topic being preached from the pulpit and in other Bible teaching classes.

Greetings, Pilgrim.

To be more specific, all protestant churches opposed all forms of contraception until the Anglican church's Seventh Lambeth Conference in the 1930's in which contraceptives were allowed in a limited capacity. This lead to many other Protestant churches to follow suit until there was no sigificant opposition to contraception of any kind except abortion. The main argument from Protestants was from scripture citing the example of Onan who God punished for spilling his seed on the ground rather than to honor his familial obligation. The founders of Protestantism seemed to be of like mind:




Of all Protestant traditions, the orthodox Amish and Lutherans seem to be the only ones actively opposed to contraception. In the case of the Amish, even the Catholic practice of calendar planning is prohibited. And now, thanks to you, I can gladly add to that list traditional, historic Reformed and Calvinist Baptist churches.

IF you have understood what I wrote as being in agreement with those stated by Luther, Calvin and Wesley, which you equate with the views on contraception of Rome, you are unfortunately and woefully mistaken. What I wrote was I and most conservative Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist churches are opposed to the use of any type of abortifacient, which I qualified as anything which effected a fertilized egg, and providing a couple examples; IUDs and the 'Morning After Pill'.

I would disagree with Luther, Calvin and Wesley in their interpretation and application of the case with Onan. How I interpret the passage in question is not the issue and I shall not bother to spend time exegeting the passage. And I do think the Roman State Church should spend far more energy on dealing with adultery, fornication, homosexuality, pornography, etc., which runs rampant through both its members and clergy rather than decrying the alleged horrible sin of a married couple choosing to use condoms or some other non-abortifacient.

Interesting. I've never heard that before and I'd be very interested in learning more. Do you have any references,links...whatever, that I can check out, which delves more into this distinction?

Sorry Newman, but I don't have any references which you can check out. Among us Protestants who stand against abortion in all its horrendous forms, it is generally acknowledged that not all contraceptives are contributory to abortion and thus acceptable for use. We also desire to go beyond the outward prevention of pregnancy and focus upon the heart; the reasons why a couple would not want any more children. There are far more unbiblical and selfish reasons than there are good ones and thus sin lies at the door and that is a more pressing matter that should be addressed.

Dang. Well, then how do you know that 50 years ago, Protestants were only opposed to certain TYPES (your emphasis) of contraception? Is this just something you've been told verbally, like you're telling me now?

Back 40 or 50 years ago there wasn't much in the way of abortificients other than the IUD and the local butcher who worked in dark allies if a hospital wasn't your first choice. There were other alleged "remedies" of course, e.g., a scalding hot bath, consumables, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Anything that came along that was promoted as a pregnancy preventative was widely publicized and/or made known through "Right to Life" groups. A close watch on "Planned Parenthood" was operative even back then, which often got the latest and greatest products designed to that end.

All I can tell you from experience is what I've already mentioned... conservative Protestants were and still are opposed to any and all forms of abortificients but they are not opposed to other forms of contraception.

I got ya. Thanks. I agree with you that it is too broad to say that 50 years ago, Catholics and Protestants stood arm in arm against contraception. Maybe 80 years ago that was the case, (and certainly before then all the way back to the Reformation) but between 1930 and 1960 it seems Protestant Churches and Pastors became ever increasingly accepting of barrier methods and the divide grew pretty significantly. I've never heard before what you said about somewhat universal opposition to abortifacients at the time. As I say, that's pretty interesting to me, especially since the pill is an abortifacient and yet is pretty widely accepted by Protetants today, I think. I don't know if there were any Protestant objections to the pill along those lines 30 or 40 years ago. Probably not, would be my guess.

I know you don't want to exegete the Onan passage here and that's fine, but, if I may, why do you think it was that they all got it wrong? Did the social environment they lived in lead them to this error? Obviously many would say that's the case, and that now we should adapt to modern sensibilities. I doubt if you'd put it that way, but I don't really know what you would say about it, hence my interest.

Also, is there any other passage, or issue in which all the reformers and all their successors got scripture wrong?

Unless I have been told wrong by the medical community, the pill can come as a abortifacient, or non-abortifacient.

Tom

There are actually no birth control pills that can guarantee not to be an abortifacient. The way birth control pills work is by setting up a gauntlet to prevent pregnancies. The combination of progestogen and estrogen works to suppress the production of egg cells, then to change the mucus in the cervex to make it difficult for sperm to reach the egg, and then, if those two fail, the uteral wall linings are suppressed from developing so that a fertilized egg can find purchase in it. None of these measures alone can fully assure a prevention of pregnancy and figures vary as to how many eggs are expressed in spite of the pill and become fertilized only to die for lack of assylum.