Contraception and Sodomy, Part 2
A good friend of mine objects to the association of contraception and sodomy:
Precisely. And this is exactly what Fr. Smith's article said, although he took several hundred more words to do so.
In short: what is the purpose of marital relations, contracepted marital relations, and sodomite relations?
I submit that the purpose (end, goal, objective) of sodomite relations and the purpose of contracepted marital relations is exactly the same purpose: physical pleasure and a deepening of what is falsely called "love."
What elevates marital relations and places them on a plane to which sodomite relations cannot even hope to rise is the God-given ability to beget children. This is the one and only difference between sodomite relations and marital relations which employ contraceptives.
Absolutely NOT! Well, Ok, Maybe ...
The truly troubling aspect of this question of contraception is the fact that it has become a question at all.
The Protestant Synod of Dort issued a commentary on Scripture which called contraception just as bad as abortion.
John Calvin said contraception was the murder of future human beings.
John Wesley said contraception was "unnatural" and killed the souls of those who used it.
Straight to the point, Martin Luther did as I have done, and simply called contraception sodomy.
Even Arthur Pink declared that "We do not believe in what is termed 'birth control'."
When the Anglicans finally caved on this question (yes, the Anglicans - the same group that has recently caved on the question of sodomy ... as if the connection between the two isn't explicit enough), even then (Lambeth Conference, 1930) they made some very striking statements:
1) They acknowledged that "the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children." (Resolution 13)
2) They proposed the question of contraception by first stating that there must be a "clearly felt moral obligation" - read again: "moral obligation" - before one could even begin to think in terms of "limit[ing] or avoid[ing] parenthood." (Resolution 15)
3) If one could point to a moral obligation - note again that the word is "obligation," not "whim" or "desire" or "financial necessity" - then the Conference acknowledges that the "primary and obvious method" of limiting/avoiding parenthood "is complete abstinence from intercourse ... in a life of discipline and self-control." (Resolution 15)
4) If there was a "moral obligation" to limit/avoid parenthood, and if there was "a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence" (Resolution 15), then - and only then - does the Conference admit of contraception
5) After allowing for contraception in these rare cases where both moral requirements have been met (a moral obligation to limit parenthood, and a morally sound reason for not using abstinence), the Conference immediately "records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." (Resolution 15)
Now, I ask: who among the Protestant denominations today thinks in these terms? Who asks, before reaching for the patch, the foam, the jelly, the latex, or the pill, if they have a strong moral obligation to limit the number of children they will have? And who, having answered that question in the affirmative, asks themselves if they have a morally sound reason for rejecting abstinence?
More to the point, who among the Protestant denominations will affirm, as the Lambeth Conference affirmed a mere 74 years ago, 1) that the primary purpose of marriage is to beget children, and 2) that the primary and obvious means of limiting procreation is total abstinence?
When Fr. Smith says that we can't look to Protestantism for our hope in the future, he's not being rude - he's reflecting on historical fact.
Prior to 1930, no Protestant would have affirmed that contraception was anything but a grave evil. Within 30 years of the Anglican compromise, the Sexual Revolution hit, and suddenly contraception became ok.
Think of that. The entire Protestant fortress - not just the Anglicans, not just the Lutherans, not just the Baptists, but every major denomination - collapsed within 30-40 years.
Went from "contraception is as bad as sodomy and abortion," to the unthinkable defense, "contraception is exercising good stewardship over what God has given you."
And we're not just talking about some matter of custom or practice, like whether or not to have services on Sunday night - we're talking about a matter of ethics and morals, a realm in which right is always right and wrong is always wrong.
Now, really, what are the chances that Protestantism will toe the line on abortion? On Sodomy? It's not like these issues are separate - they're all issues of morality, and they have all been equally condemned (up until 1930) as absolutely evil.
One Anglican stone in the windshield, and the tiny crack grows to a spider-web and eventually explodes within 30-40 years.
Likewise, one Anglican stone has just been hurled at the windshield called Sodomy is Evil. Given past historical data, how long will it be before every major Protestant denomination is not only not calling Sodomy "evil," but - as with contraception - is actually defending it as a positive Good, an exercise of God-given responsibility?
Oh, that will never happen - right?
But it did happen. In 1930. That's the problem.
I'm not interested in philosophical or Scriptural arguments - the argument was settled a long, long time ago, and every Christian in the world was in agreement.
What I'm interested in is what - after 1,930 years - changed? What stunning new insight warranted overturning the established belief of every Christian teacher in history? What evidence is there that this new and enlightened discovery - "hey guys, contraception isn't evil ... turns out it's Christian!" - which comes to us as a historical novelty in the same century that brought us the enlightenment of legalized Sodomy, the AIDS epidemic, legalized abortion, legalized and widespread divorce, the Sexual Revolution, the Feminist Movement, and pornography on every street corner - I say, what evidence is there that this new discovery about contraception is any different than any of these other societal evils? What evidence is there that this new discovery is better and more true than the universal consensus of 1,930 years' worth of Christians?
Alright, so one more time:
1) Sodomy: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
2) Contracepted Fornication: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
3) Bestiality: physical pleasure, deepening (one-sided) emotional union, no conception
4) Self-Abuse (or "solitary vice"): physical pleasure, deepening (fantasy-based) emotional union, no conception
5) Contracepted Marital Relations: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
6) Marital Relations without Contraception: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, true self-sacrifice, conception of children
... the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one [flesh]? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. (Mal. 2:14-15, NIV)
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous ... if any woman ejects a fetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment." (John Calvin, 1509-1564)
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin ... that worthless fellow refused to exercise love. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother." (Martin Luther, 1483-1546)
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body ... he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - and it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (John Wesley, Methodist, 1703-1791)
"The lewdness of this fact was composed of lust, of envy, and murder ... [murder,] in that there is a seminal vital virtue [future person], which perishes if the seed be spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion ... his brother Er before, was his brother in evil thus far, that both of them satisfied their sensuality against the order of nature ... which may be for terror ... to those, who, in marriage, care not for the increase of children, but for the satisfying of thier concupiscence." (Westminster Annotations, 1657)
I come to completely different conclusions regarding contraception. The difference lies in the understanding of the purpose or purposes
of sex.
Precisely. And this is exactly what Fr. Smith's article said, although he took several hundred more words to do so.
In short: what is the purpose of marital relations, contracepted marital relations, and sodomite relations?
I submit that the purpose (end, goal, objective) of sodomite relations and the purpose of contracepted marital relations is exactly the same purpose: physical pleasure and a deepening of what is falsely called "love."
What elevates marital relations and places them on a plane to which sodomite relations cannot even hope to rise is the God-given ability to beget children. This is the one and only difference between sodomite relations and marital relations which employ contraceptives.
Absolutely NOT! Well, Ok, Maybe ...
The truly troubling aspect of this question of contraception is the fact that it has become a question at all.
The Protestant Synod of Dort issued a commentary on Scripture which called contraception just as bad as abortion.
John Calvin said contraception was the murder of future human beings.
John Wesley said contraception was "unnatural" and killed the souls of those who used it.
Straight to the point, Martin Luther did as I have done, and simply called contraception sodomy.
Even Arthur Pink declared that "We do not believe in what is termed 'birth control'."
When the Anglicans finally caved on this question (yes, the Anglicans - the same group that has recently caved on the question of sodomy ... as if the connection between the two isn't explicit enough), even then (Lambeth Conference, 1930) they made some very striking statements:
1) They acknowledged that "the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children." (Resolution 13)
2) They proposed the question of contraception by first stating that there must be a "clearly felt moral obligation" - read again: "moral obligation" - before one could even begin to think in terms of "limit[ing] or avoid[ing] parenthood." (Resolution 15)
3) If one could point to a moral obligation - note again that the word is "obligation," not "whim" or "desire" or "financial necessity" - then the Conference acknowledges that the "primary and obvious method" of limiting/avoiding parenthood "is complete abstinence from intercourse ... in a life of discipline and self-control." (Resolution 15)
4) If there was a "moral obligation" to limit/avoid parenthood, and if there was "a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence" (Resolution 15), then - and only then - does the Conference admit of contraception
5) After allowing for contraception in these rare cases where both moral requirements have been met (a moral obligation to limit parenthood, and a morally sound reason for not using abstinence), the Conference immediately "records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." (Resolution 15)
Now, I ask: who among the Protestant denominations today thinks in these terms? Who asks, before reaching for the patch, the foam, the jelly, the latex, or the pill, if they have a strong moral obligation to limit the number of children they will have? And who, having answered that question in the affirmative, asks themselves if they have a morally sound reason for rejecting abstinence?
More to the point, who among the Protestant denominations will affirm, as the Lambeth Conference affirmed a mere 74 years ago, 1) that the primary purpose of marriage is to beget children, and 2) that the primary and obvious means of limiting procreation is total abstinence?
When Fr. Smith says that we can't look to Protestantism for our hope in the future, he's not being rude - he's reflecting on historical fact.
Prior to 1930, no Protestant would have affirmed that contraception was anything but a grave evil. Within 30 years of the Anglican compromise, the Sexual Revolution hit, and suddenly contraception became ok.
Think of that. The entire Protestant fortress - not just the Anglicans, not just the Lutherans, not just the Baptists, but every major denomination - collapsed within 30-40 years.
Went from "contraception is as bad as sodomy and abortion," to the unthinkable defense, "contraception is exercising good stewardship over what God has given you."
And we're not just talking about some matter of custom or practice, like whether or not to have services on Sunday night - we're talking about a matter of ethics and morals, a realm in which right is always right and wrong is always wrong.
Now, really, what are the chances that Protestantism will toe the line on abortion? On Sodomy? It's not like these issues are separate - they're all issues of morality, and they have all been equally condemned (up until 1930) as absolutely evil.
One Anglican stone in the windshield, and the tiny crack grows to a spider-web and eventually explodes within 30-40 years.
Likewise, one Anglican stone has just been hurled at the windshield called Sodomy is Evil. Given past historical data, how long will it be before every major Protestant denomination is not only not calling Sodomy "evil," but - as with contraception - is actually defending it as a positive Good, an exercise of God-given responsibility?
Oh, that will never happen - right?
But it did happen. In 1930. That's the problem.
I'm not interested in philosophical or Scriptural arguments - the argument was settled a long, long time ago, and every Christian in the world was in agreement.
What I'm interested in is what - after 1,930 years - changed? What stunning new insight warranted overturning the established belief of every Christian teacher in history? What evidence is there that this new and enlightened discovery - "hey guys, contraception isn't evil ... turns out it's Christian!" - which comes to us as a historical novelty in the same century that brought us the enlightenment of legalized Sodomy, the AIDS epidemic, legalized abortion, legalized and widespread divorce, the Sexual Revolution, the Feminist Movement, and pornography on every street corner - I say, what evidence is there that this new discovery about contraception is any different than any of these other societal evils? What evidence is there that this new discovery is better and more true than the universal consensus of 1,930 years' worth of Christians?
Alright, so one more time:
1) Sodomy: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
2) Contracepted Fornication: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
3) Bestiality: physical pleasure, deepening (one-sided) emotional union, no conception
4) Self-Abuse (or "solitary vice"): physical pleasure, deepening (fantasy-based) emotional union, no conception
5) Contracepted Marital Relations: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, no conception
6) Marital Relations without Contraception: physical pleasure, deepening emotional union, true self-sacrifice, conception of children
... the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one [flesh]? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. (Mal. 2:14-15, NIV)
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous ... if any woman ejects a fetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment." (John Calvin, 1509-1564)
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin ... that worthless fellow refused to exercise love. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother." (Martin Luther, 1483-1546)
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body ... he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - and it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (John Wesley, Methodist, 1703-1791)
"The lewdness of this fact was composed of lust, of envy, and murder ... [murder,] in that there is a seminal vital virtue [future person], which perishes if the seed be spilled; and by doing this to hinder the begetting of a living child, is the first degree of murder that can be committed, and the next unto it is the marring of conception, when it is made, and causing of abortion ... his brother Er before, was his brother in evil thus far, that both of them satisfied their sensuality against the order of nature ... which may be for terror ... to those, who, in marriage, care not for the increase of children, but for the satisfying of thier concupiscence." (Westminster Annotations, 1657)
<< Home