Communion Document

I agree, we should stop discussing the birth control issue

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Lacantius, Divine Institutes 6:20)

It has been decided

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:7)

once and for all

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Epiphanus, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2)

It is not open to consideration

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 (Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65)

It is finished

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Casearius Sermons 1:12)

Tradition has spoken (that wonderful democracy of the past)

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Jerome, Letters 22:13)

Here today,

O.K., so I lied. I will comment on birth control.

"Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Lacantius, Divine Institutes 6:20)"

Seems to me Lacantius is saying that, if you can't afford children, it is better not to have them. Better than what? It prohibits nothing, simply says abstaining from relations in order not to have children you cannot afford is better than having children you cannot afford.

"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:7)"

Just exactly what is Hippolytus opposed to? Wealthy Christian women with concubines? Who have relations with the lowborn but do not want children by them? Drugs of sterility? Binding to cause abortion? Would he approve of those women having relations with concubines if they did have children by them? The [oral contraceptives]and [abortion], are they part of the original text or were they added later? Could it be read, "they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expell a fetus"? Do these drugs of sterility prevent conception or cause abortions? I know how we understand oral contraceptives today, but how was it understood back then?

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Epiphanus, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2)

Here, procreation is seen as the only justification for exercising genital acts. There is no consideration to the expression of marital love or union. Rather than seening it as an expression of love, it is only seen as a satisfaction of lust. Pretty poor view of human sexuality.

"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 (Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65)

Here again there is no recognition of copulation as an expression of married love. It is either procreation or passion and, it it's passion Gussy is against it. "Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress,". There is an interesting statement. "Procreation of children a greater sin than copulation". Is Gus speaking of "sin" as we understand it or is he saying that some Maicheans see procreation of children a bad thing and therefore a sin? Is Gus saying that copulation is itself sinful? Sure seens so to me.

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Casearius Sermons 1:12)

No woman is to use a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient]...As often as she could have conceived (contractption) or given birth (abortion) of that many homocides she will be held guilty. So, using contraceptives is considered homocide. We know that not to be true and supports the statement I have made elsewhere that there was no understanding of the difference between preventing conception and abortion and that, in lumping the two together, it is actually abortion which is being condemned.

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Jerome, Letters 22:13)

Here Jerome clearly makes no distinction between preventing conception and abortion. "will dring sterility and murder a man not yet born" clearly indicated either Jerome does not understand the process of fertilization and seek killing the sperm as killing a man or the sterility (drug) causes abortion. If fertilization has not taken place, there is no man to kill.

Thank you for supporting my position.

I would also add that, while I see having children as an end of marriage in general, I do not see that we can conclued it is necessarily an end of each and every marriage or each and every sex act between married people.

I also note there is no Scriptural basis mentioned.

Hippolytus is writing to counter the teachings and practice of Callistus and his followers (Refutation of all Heresies, book 9, chapter 7) The last paragraph of this chapter deals with the sexual immorality among the Callistians:

And the hearers of Callistus being delighted with his tenets, continue with him, thus mocking both themselves as well as many others, and crowds of these dupes stream together into his school. Wherefore also his pupils are multiplied, and they plume themselves upon the crowds (attending the school) for the sake of pleasures which Christ did not permit. But in contempt of Him, they place restraint on the commission of no sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce (in Callistus' opinions). For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded,5 and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs5 for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth.6 Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!6 And some, under the supposition that they will attain prosperity, concur with them. During the episcopate of this one, second baptism was for the first time presumptuously attempted by them. These, then, (are the practices and opinions which) that most astonishing Callistus established, whose school continues, preserving its customs and tradition, not discerning with whom they ought to communicate, but indiscriminately offering communion to all. And from him they have derived the denomination of their cognomen; so that, on account of Callistus being a foremost champion of such practices, they should be called Callistians.6

(sounds familiar, where have I seen this since?) The adultury is condemned, the use of contraceptives and abortion doubly so. (As to Hoping's objections, I unfortunately do not read Greek, so I will have to trust the translation unless an alternate one is raised in objection).

While the contraceptives of the time were much less effective, they did exist, and may have also proven to be abortificent, like our current oral contraceptives(note the orginial text of the Hippocratic oath).

Love, in the usage of our culture, is frequently confused with lust (and vice versa). Love does not demand sex, and sex separated from its natural ends is the satisfaction of lust, not love.

----

a note on the contraceptive/abortion references: both you and William have expressed that the writers must put contraception on par with murder only because the prevalent theory of conception. However, I do not think that that is indeed a huge part of the argument, but that the prevention of conception is, in itself, as wrong as murder.

There is no Scriptural evidence FOR contraception or abortion, no limitations on the command to be fruitful (in the universal covenants with Adam and Noah).

Maturbation! There's always master-bation....
hehe

Love, Laugh, Live

Transfinitum, if he drops in again, owes you I think $100. He claimed that nowhere did the church ever equate contraception with murder and offered the bounty for a quote. You did it!
Can we read this piece and not question a position that condemns contraception and upholds slavery?

Frannie, I don't think transfinitum would pay off for the same reason Bob tries to make in this series of posts. The prevailing understanding of conception from the tradition being quoted understood the sperm to contain all the necessary parts to implant a viable human in a woman's uterus. Most of the 'sterility' drugs referrenced here were either actual abortifactents, or were attempts to prevent implantation. No one understood the female reproductive cycle beyond the obvious monthly discharge. The idea that these early writers understood contraception the way we do is absurd. If I was transfinitum I certainly wouldn't pay the hundred dollars.

Additionally, your observation concerning the seeming acceptance of slavery is right on target and male slaves were frequently subjected to the common practice of male sterilization, that of castration, which is interestingly enough not mentioned or condemned. Essentially what is being condemned, is the audacity of women to attempt to control their pregnancies, both in terms of number there of, and the paternity there of.

Thanks. I believe you are 100% correct about the ancient understanding of conception. I still think "T" should pay up, jsut because the word appears.
And what about castration to produce high voices for the Vatican choir?

Amongst many many other European Cathedral choirs. It's kind of sick to think this practice continued up to the end of the 1800's. Of course the Church's excuse is they didn't actually do the castrating. I guess being one of the main markets for the system didn't qualify as a sin.

I don't see where it upholds slavery, and if your judging it on its condemnation of contraception, then there is no point in this discussion is there?

It accepts it as a given. Silence implies consent.

Here Today,

You have expanded on your first guote from Hyppolytus but, to my mind, have not clarified anything. Just what were those "drugs for producing sterility" and how did they work? Did they prevent conception or cause abortion? We really don't know, do we? What was Hyppolytus" understanding of conception? Was he of the opinion that the male ejaculate contained a "little man" who needed a womb in which to grow and develope or did he understand fertilization? If one held to the "little man" theory, then there is no difference between contraception and abortion and I can understand why one would consider contraception murder. However, since we now understand that there is no "little man", I fail to see how one would come to such a conclusion.

Clearly, Hoppy condemned contraceptives, but we really don't know what he was condemning.

You wrote: "While the contraceptives of the time were much less effective, they did exist, and may have also proven to be abortificent, like our current oral contraceptives(note the orginial text of the Hippocratic oath)."

Our "currentn oral contraceptives" are just that, contraceptives, they are not abortificants. Yes, there are pills that cause abortions, but they are distinct from contraceptives. You seem to be as confused as Hoppy.

As for, "Love, in the usage of our culture, is frequently confused with lust (and vice versa). Love does not demand sex, and sex separated from its natural ends is the satisfaction of lust, not love."

Clearly, when it comes to conjugal love, you lack personal experience and really don't have a clue what you are talking about. You can learn only so much from books. When you have experienced a bit more life, hopefully, you will understand that the unitive end of the marriage act is equally as important as the procreative end and that both need not be present in each and every conjugal act. If you can't get beyond seeing the sex act only as a lustful act, you are very immature.

You wrote: "a note on the contraceptive/abortion references: both you and William have expressed that the writers must put contraception on par with murder only because the prevalent theory of conception. However, I do not think that that is indeed a huge part of the argument, but that the prevention of conception is, in itself, as wrong as murder."

Not only is it a huge part of the argument, it is the argument, a point you seem to have missed. Would you please explain to me how you come to the conclusion that "the prevention of conception is, in itself, as wrong as murder"?

And finally, "There is no Scriptural evidence FOR contraception or abortion, no limitations on the command to be fruitful (in the universal covenants with Adam and Noah)."

What universal covenants with Adam and Noah? There is no mention of nor is there a covenant with Adam and the covenant with Noah has to do with placing a rainbow in the sky as a promise that God would never again (not that he did in the first place) destroy the earth by flood. Has nothing at all to do with birth control. Could you possibly be attempting to establish from Scripure that God is the founder of the Rainbow Coalition?

----

Really, is it that hard to look anything up? try these links: wikipedia or those at google.

As to oral contraceptives, Mifepristone(Ru-486) is essentially a large dose of the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill (aka "The Pill"), which can function on its own as an abortifacient. It would seem naive to deny that abortion would be a likely side effect of that which seeks to prevent the child from forming. Perhaps Hyppolytus and I are not so obtuse, after all. (BTW, would I hve to kill as many as, say Hitler, to know that that is evil? Would I have to give birth to know that that is good? Personal experience is a mediocre foundation for morality at best)

I never denied the unitve end of marriage, but the seperation of the end from the means (in this case either end) makes the means the end, that is lust. This perversion of the highest natural act is immoral. This is aside from the understanding of the sperm and contraception, despite your fixation on it.

The widespread attestation to the Flood from around the world not withstanding, no covenant is without obligations on the lesser (human) side of the agreement. The full account of the establishing of the Noahaic covenant (and through him all mankind) reads thus:
"8: 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
9: 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.""

And there remains no Scriptural, Patristic, or Magesterial evidence in your favor, so I would suggest that you find some approach of actually defending your pov.

Good Morning Here,

No, it certainly is not that difficult to look things up. So I suggest you continue to do so. Your research on contraceptives is rather shoddy. It is intellectually dishonest to claim to have researched something when, in fact, you have only cherry picked to support a conclusion you have already come to. As I stated in my post, yes, there are pills that do cause abortions. However, this is not the case with all oral contraceptives. I am sure that, if you continue to research, you will discover this to be true.

You wrote: "(BTW, would I hve to kill as many as, say Hitler, to know that that is evil? Would I have to give birth to know that that is good? Personal experience is a mediocre foundation for morality at best)"

You may think the first part clever, but, really. I never said personal experience is a foundation for morality. My point, which you do not seem to grasp, it that the "doer" is always a human being. It is never a disembodied intellect and will which, much like a computer, analizes a proplem and, based on the "cold facts" comes to a decision. It is as humans, with all that implies, that we act. So much of the doctrines of the Magisterium and the comments of "Magisterians" like you seem to be unaware of this. As, in another post, Colkoch mentioned, there is a great need to factor in developmental psychology and the human factor. God made us as we are and it is as we are that he intends us to act and react.

You said, "I never denied the unitve end of marriage, but the seperation of the end from the means (in this case either end) makes the means the end, that is lust. This perversion of the highest natural act is immoral. This is aside from the understanding of the sperm and contraception, despite your fixation on it."

Accepting the Magisterium's position that sex within a marriage has two ends, unitive and procreative, I challange you to support the position that the two must be fulfilled in each and every sex act or even in each and every marriage.

The "fixation" of the sperm and contraception, it is not a fixation at all. It is a very important factor which needs to be understood when talking about the Magisterium's teaching on birth control. If, way back when this teaching was formulated, the view was that the male seed needed a womb to grow, just as a wheat seed needs soil, then, preventing this seed from entering the womb or destroying it would be to kill it. The difference being that the wheat seed has already been fertilized while, until it unites with the ovum, the male seed in unfertilized and if it is destroyed there is no loss of life. In the male ejaculate there are thousands of sperm. Only one, or possibly a few more in the case of multiple births, will be destroyed quite naturally. Are these little abortions? The understanding of what happens that causes pregnancy is very important to the discussion on birth control. I would suggest a careful reading of your own post quoting various sources commenting on the subject will shed light on their understanding and that they were ignorant of the process and their conclusion were based on that ignorance.

As for the Noah thing, while there are many ancient myths that speak of the world being destroyed by a flood, we have no real historical evidence of the happening that I am aware of. Correct me if I am wrong. It would seem, however, that there was, in our perhisory, some event upon which these myths are based. The Noah story is the Judeo-Christian myth dealing with whatever happened. It starts out saying that God, who we believe is all knowing, "regretted that he had made man on the earth." Now, if God is all knowing, he must have known how things would turn out so why the regret? Unless, of course, we are dealing with men trying to understand and to explain how a God who is good could do such a thing and that is exactly what we are dealing with. It is a new creation story and has much in common with the beginning of Genesis. If it is not understood as myth it is not understood. If you are going to see it as historically factual, as we understand history, then I can offer you a good deal on a map showing where the ark is and you can stay in the tower of Babel while you are looking for it.

"And there remains no Scriptural, Patristic, or Magesterial evidence in your favor, so I would suggest that you find some approach of actually defending your pov."

I would suggest there is no Scriptural evidence to support the Magisterium's claim that all sexual acts must be open to procreation. As for the Patristic, I believe you did a very nice job, in your quots above, of supplying a foundation for my position and I see nowhere in the teaching of the Magisterium a justification for concluding that each and every sex act must be open to procreation. This being the case, I might add, there is also no foundation for the comdemnation of same sex sex between committed couples.

I've noticed several references to Wikipedia as an authoritative source over the past several months. A commentary in last weeks Kansas City Star by the Star's Reader's Representative. He points out there is no independent, disinterested resource to check the facts in Wikipedia. Anyone with internet access is able to "edit" any article anonymously at any moment so there is an "unceasing flow of vandalism to entries. Plagiarism is widespread and difficult to identify." He says people engage in edit wars in which opposing authors change details back and forth until one side wins through sheer tenacity. (Sound familiar?) Google Earth sometimes refers to it's content which would create a doubt in my mind about the usefulness of any information from that source too. You can access the article "Wikipedia is Hardly Authoritative on Any Subject" at the Kansas City Star online.

Thank you 123bow. I wondered when somebody would bring this up about wikpedia. Relying on wikpedia for accurate information is akin to relying on Jerry Springer for mature entertainment. I guess that depends on your definition of 'mature'.

Yes, you do have to be careful with wiki, but it is more reliable than some would have it. It also has the benefit of being a commonly available resource. I would venture to say that it is safe to trust (particularly if there are other sources that can afirm the assertions on wiki) on any particular article unless someone can cite an opposing available source. Being that almost no one will post sources, I am quite confident that 90% of my wiki quotes have gone unchallenged, and most of the challenges have yet to be substantiated. That includes the use of wiki as a reference ;-).

*sarcasm*Yes, wikipedia and google are known for their militant right wing bias.*/sarcasm*

It is the case with the most common oral contraceptives, paritcularly "the pill", that they can be abortifacient as well as contraceptive and, if you read the article I linked to (wikipedia) this dual nature of compounds that were used as contraceptives from the time of Chirst, if not before, has long been known. (BTW, does this quote look familiar:"Our "currentn oral contraceptives" are just that, contraceptives, they are not abortificants. Yes, there are pills that cause abortions, but they are distinct from contraceptives.")

If we are free to seperate one end from the means, then can we seperate the other as well? If so, then I guess fornication and adultry are fine, despite clear injunctions against them in Scripture (since you seem to be a 'sola scriptura' at the moment). Indeed, does any sexual more remain if we remove then ends? Only physically violent acts against the will of one of the participants remain taboo, if the act is the aim.

For the 'Sola Scriptura' crowd: "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the Earth and subdue it." "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

You are fixated on the (apparently only) argument you can see, one that no one on this site holds as valid. You can stop trying to get me to argue that one, but that has no bearing on the Church's continued opposition to contraception.

Re: homsexuality in the Bible. Really, if you insist on sola sciptura you should know the Bible better. The condemnations of Deuteronomy (IIRC) are repeated in St Paul's letters.

Can you help me find biblical injunctions against fornication by a woman not legally bound to her husband, father or son? No property rights violated?

Would injunctions again general sexual immorality work? If so: Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7; Hebrews 13:4

Thanks, but no. That's circular reasoning. We can't find a specific objection, so we'll consider the objectionable and include it on it. No. I'm looking for a specific.

Good morning again Here,

I don't know what article you read in wikipedia, but the one I read said that the pill "primarily prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation". This would mean fertilization does not happen and so there is no question of an abortive effect.

However, in the event a pregnancy does occur, it says the pill "could involve any one or more of the following mechanisms of action." It goes on to name the three and say they primarily prevent the embrio from being implanted in the uterus; possibly make the uterus not able to support a pregnancy or cause a tubal pregnancy. Note the word "could". Does not say they do. Women who use the pill do give birth to healthy babies.

So, if the pill is used properly, in 98% percent of cases, fertilization will not take place. In the 2% where it does, the pill "COULD" cause an abortion but not necessarily.

It also stated that, in clinically recognized pregnancies, the number of miscarriages is the same as with women who do not take the pill.

You yourself wrote, "It is the case with the most common oral contraceptives, paritcularly "the pill", that they can be abortifacient as well as contraceptive". 'Can be' and 'are' mean very different things.

Yes, there is a possibility that, without intending it, the use of the pill could cause an abortion. Then too, there is always the possibility that any pregnancy could be ended by a natural abortion. It does happen. Perhaps we should just condemn sex completely because we know that there will be cases where it will lead to abortions.

Are we free to seperate either end? I would say yes. I believe I have at least tried to indicate that I have been talking about sex within marriage. Could a married couple have sex just to have a baby? Sure. Although I suspect the unitive aspect is there. As to fornication, I am opposed to casual or recerational sex outside of marriage, but I am not sure there are not instances when a committed couple, though not married, can have sex without it being sinful. You see, my starting point is that sex, given us by God, is a good, wonderful, beautiful, exciting expression of love and does not need "justification" to prevent it from being sinful. Adultry is not so much a sexual sin as a violation of a marital relationship and, historically, primarily a violation of the rights of a man. As has often been noted, it was only the woman who was brought before Jesus. What happened to the man?

I am hardly "sola scriptura". Let me give you a brief insight to my understanding of the Bible. First of all, I believe that, for the Christian, the Gospels are to the Bible as the Torah is to the Old Testament. That means, to me, that it is the ultimate scriptural authority and all other books must be read and understood in light of the Gospels. I believe Christ established a New Covenant with Christianity with a New Law that we are to love one another. The Law of the Old Testament does not apply to the Christian, although anyone who loves fulfills its requirements. If we are to pull laws from the Hebrew text upon which to base our morality, we must observe them all. As for Paul, he is a very interesting man. I, for one, fall into the camp that believes he has had more influence on Christianity than Christ and I am not at all sure Paul always "had the mind of Christ."
Paul wrote some very wonderful things. He also said some things we tend to not accept. "Slaves obey your masters.", the place of women in marriage and the church and the admonition to obey civil authority because it came from God. If we accepted that one we would have to accept Sadam Hussain as having been put in place by God. Same thing with Hitler.

I think Scrupture is a very, very important voice we must listen to, but I think we have a great deal to learn about just how we are to listen. For example, I understand the Pope is considering the stance the Church should take in relation to evolution. It is not so much evolution itself that is the problem, it is the implications of it. Yes, it is just a theory and it has many weaknesses and the missing link is still missing, but there is much very hard scientific evidence to support that evolution is taking place and the inplications for Christian doctrine are many. The dinosauers evolved, lived, and died long before man appeared on earth. Adam could not possibly have named them. Also, death was present on earth before man, let alone before man sinned. There is evidence to suggest humanity had a very halting start with various groups evolving and not surviving. What does this do to the doctrine of Original Sin?

You wrote, "You are fixated on the (apparently only) argument you can see, one that no one on this site holds as valid. You can stop trying to get me to argue that one, but that has no bearing on the Church's continued opposition to contraception."

I am not at all sure I am the only one on this site that holds is valid but I will no longer argue with you and I agree it has no bearing on the Church's continued opposition to contraception because the Magisterium seems to have no difficulty holding on to positions even after the factual foundation for them is proven wrong.

"However, in the event a pregnancy does occur, it says the pill "could involve any one or more of the following mechanisms of action." It goes on to name the three and say they primarily prevent the embrio from being implanted in the uterus; possibly make the uterus not able to support a pregnancy or cause a tubal pregnancy. Note the word "could". Does not say they do. Women who use the pill do give birth to healthy babies.

So, if the pill is used properly, in 98% percent of cases, fertilization will not take place. In the 2% where it does, the pill "COULD" cause an abortion but not necessarily."

How many women are on the Pill? How often do they have sex? How many pregnancies are 2%? If in that tiny number (probably in the thousands or even millions) that is 2%, you have a statistical certainty that an abortion or tubal pregnancy will result. The possibility is enough to suggest that this form, at least, can be considered unacceptable.

It would be wrong for even a married couple to have sex solely for the purpose of procreation (even in the last people on earth scenario). As you said, the unitive act is hard to separate in marriage, although it is possible. For example, a husband who uses his wife for his own gratification, or even to produce children, but is abusive to her otherwise would be abusing the sexual act as well, by denying the unitve end. So you see the unitive end cannot be seperate licitly from the sex act, how could the procreative?

The sola scriptura charge was sarcasm. You want everything I present based on Scripture, but you yourelf have difficulties with Scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture is reliable or its not. If its not, then Islam is the remaining monothestic religion, at least until you look at the reliablility of the Koran and its concurrence with what you believe to be True.

The Gospels depend on the Old Testament, the Old Covenants set the stage for the New. So to rely on the Gospels mean that one must then look at the background, the story that sets up the story of our Redemption.

To reject St. Paul, or the any of the books of the Bible is to question the Authority of the Bible as a whole. If we can remove one book, or even one chapter, what about the rest. How do we justify excluding the Gospel of Thomas or other gnostic texts, if we can change the canon at will? How do we justify keeping John with the hard sayings about the Bread of Life?

As far as the "hard evidence" of evolution: really? What? Where is one of the millions of missing links? Any of them? Where is the introduction of new genetic material happening now? (ohh and my personal favorite: Why are there still monkeys? and bacteria, amoebas, viruses, plankton, etc?) Oh, and have they got that spontaneous generation thing working yet? ;-)

Seriously, evolution is seriously flawed as a theory. There has been no conclusive evidence of macro evolution. (Micro evolution, ie survival of the fittest is responsible for different breeds of dogs, different color butterflies, etc, but the species remainin the species).

I would argue that there is enough anecdotal evidence in mythology and lore to say that man and dinosaurs did coexist (ever hear of dragons? mythological creatures who are attested to in similar form around the world, from china to england, even south America) Of course I belive that the Leviathan and Bohemouth(sp?) in Job are clear descriptions of dinosaurs, millenia before we reconstructed our first Brontosaurus.

I will have to lookup the research, but I believe it has been proven that all of huanity shares common parents, so Original Sin is still in. (And then again, the story of the Garden just might be metaphorical, all that matters is man fell, not the details of how).

Here Today,

I wrote, "Paul wrote some very wonderful things. He also said some things we tend to not accept. "Slaves obey your masters.", the place of women in marriage and the church and the admonition to obey civil authority because it came from God. If we accepted that one we would have to accept Saddam Hussain as having been put in place by God. Same thing with Hitler."

In replly, you wrote: "To reject St. Paul, or the any of the books of the Bible is to question the Authority of the Bible as a whole. If we can remove one book, or even one chapter, what about the rest."

Very good question. Just for the fun of it, please comment on the following.

I Cor. 9:5 -- "Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Titus I:6 -- "a presbyter must be irreproachable, married only once, the father of children who are believers and are known not to be wild and insubordinate."

I Tim. 3:2 -- "A bishop must be irreproachable, married only once..."

The quotes from Titus and Timothy do not, of course, demand a presbyter or bishop be married, but they cretainly approve of it. As for Cor. 9, Paul sees himself as having a RIGHT to marry just like the other apostles are married. Could I not use this text to prove, from Scripture, that the Church has violated this RIGHT in demanding celibacy of its presbyters and bishops and, in doing so, has chosen to ignore part of Paul's letter?

Eph. 6:5 -- "Slaves, obey your human masters with the reverence, the awe, and the sincerity you owe to Christ." Would you agree with that?

Romans 13: 1-5 "Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God. As a consequence, the man who opposes authority rebels against the ordinances of God; those who resist thus shall draw condemnation down upon themselves. Rulers cause no fear when a man does what is right but only when his conduct is evil. Do you wish to be free from the fear of authority? Do what is right and you will gain its approval, for the ruler is God's servant to work for your good. Only if you do wrong ought you to be afraid. It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword; he is God's servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer. You must obey, then, not only to escapt punishment but also for conscience' sake."

Let's not even talk about Hitler and Saddam Hussain. Lets talk about the government of the United States, you know, the good guys. The government of the U.S., according to Paul receiving its authority from God, says it is permissable to have an abortion. Do you feel justified, based on Paul, in opposing this policy or would you question Pauls premice that ALL authority comes from God? Would you agree with Paul that "the man who opposes authority rebels agaist the ordinances of God." Would you agree that the law permitting abortion is an "ordinance of God"?

Yes at the time of the Apostles the discipline embraced both married (Most of the Apostles) and celibate (Paul) pristhood and bishopric. Paul's quotes to Titus and Timothy refer to the fact that they must be married ONLY once, not that they must be married. And if they have children, then their suitability as Bishops can be judged by the discipline of their children.

Remeber that this is also the great advocate of celibacy: 1 Corinithians 7. It is clear that in this Paul does share the mind of Christ vis a vis Matthew 19:12, as well as His own example.

I would agree with the insttruction to slaves to this extent: as a matter of discipline, to forestall persecution even more rigorous, it was indeed better not to counsel saves to revolt. (recall how the Romans dealt with Sparticus) While Christians should not have owned slaves, this is a novel concept, as all nations and creed hold slaves at the time. Further, in remaining 'embedded' in often influential households these slaves set an example of Christian Piety for their pagan masters, leading often to the conversion of the entire household.

As far as obedience to authority, an unjust law is no law at all (Augustine). While all authority comes from God (at least in the sense that He permits men to rule), that authority can be used to enact statutes against Divine or natural law, and these here we are bound first to the higher law. In general, we are to be obedient to those who have een placed over us, whether they be parents, the boss, or the government. Rebelling categorically against any of the above, barring the most grievous cause, would be defying the order God had imposed.

Again, Paul is expressing prudence, as a call for rebellion, or even an openness to it would have been perceived as a threat by the Roman authorities.

And here again, Paul is echoing the mind of Christ, "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

Really?

Bob, I kind of had the same reaction. Really? I guess it's OK to ignore the scriptural statement about a RIGHT to marriage for clergy, because of course we must interpret all of this in context of the CULTURE in which it was written and to WHOM it was written, while in other cases we must not pay any attention to the culture or the whom because--well, just because, and because the teaching authorities say so.

I sometimes feel like Charlie Brown attempting to kick a football held by Lucy.

I don't hve much time right now, but as to the last paragraph, I meant that no one currently thinks that the sperm is/contains the homonuclei (ie the midieval theory that you seem to think those who support the church's position hold).

Here Today,

I agree 100%. I am not suggesting that those who support the church's position hold the theory that the sperm is/contains the homonuclei.

What I am saying is that those who, in times past, were responsible for the opposition to contraception did hold that theory and, based on that theory, contraception was the same as abortion. Given that understanding, the condemnation of contraception was the right decision. I believe the quotes you posted earlier support that.

What I am suggesting is that, by the time our biological understanding of fertilization demonstrated that the theory was not valid, our teaching about contraception had been firmly established as being under the unbrella of infallibility and therefore could not be changed without undercutting our teaching on infallability itself. I think this is what Paul VI wrestled with and why he chose to uphold the teaching even though many of those consulted advised him otherwise.

I think the Magisterium has to look at the whole notion of infallibility and restate it. I do believe there is ultimate truth, but we do not fully comprehend it. However, life demands we make decisions. Those decisions can be no better than the information we possess. I believe the Magisterium has to say that, in the light of our present understanding, we have come to this decision and the faithful can be confident that, in following our teaching, they are doing the right thing. However, the decision is always open to examination in light of future understanding of the subject being considered and our teaching may change.

The Church needs to be free to reframe her teachings to keep them current with the ever expanding corpus of knowledge humanity is gaining. If not, and I think it has already begun, she is in real danger of becoming irrelevent and that would be a terrible shame.

You see, we who question do not do so to destroy the Chruch, but to save it. The dissenter, the one so many suggest leave the Church, just may be more loyal to it than those who refuse to question.

Dear Here Today, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick or to gang up by stating that I think Bob's final comment is extremely important, to my mind. He says,

"[T]he Magisterium seems to have no difficulty holding on to positions even after the factual foundation for them is proven wrong."

That was the gist of my previous comments to you. Because Catholicism relies on both faith and reason to make moral judgments, it undermines our ethical teachings when we appeal to pseudo-scientific "evidence" to support them.

It's very important that we be clear about the basis of our ethical arguments, since people's real, everyday lives are impacted by those arguments. If they are based on or spread misinformation, we not only weaken the church's mission to teach values to society. We also run the risk of hurting others by spreading misinformation that may be injurious to their lives.

Your previous posting concludes,

"Re: homsexuality in the Bible. Really, if you insist on sola sciptura you should know the Bible better. The condemnations of Deuteronomy (IIRC) are repeated in St Paul's letters."

To my mind, this illustrates the point I'd like to make. I don't recall much discussion at all of the bearing of Deuteronomy on homosexuality. When the Jewish scriptures are cited "against" homosexuality, the book of the Pentateuch that is commonly cited is Leviticus, with its holiness code, and not Deuteronomy, which is preoccupied with telling the story of the Exodus.

The very sparse proof texts in Deuteronomy cited to prove that homosexuality is immoral and abhorrent are (to my mind) illustrations of the DANGERS of citing proof texts written in a cultural context very different from our own, to reinforce our own current prejudices.

For instance, one of these is Deuteronomy 22:5, which states that those who dress in the clothes of the other gender are detestable to Yahweh.

Though this text has been cited again and again in Christian history as a condemnation of homosexuality, is it really preoccupied with that phenomenon--a phenomenon that wasn't even identified and named until the end of the 19th century? Should women who wear pants be banned from Christian lands? Are men who cross-dress really gay (not in all--or even most--instances, if studies I've read are scientifically sound).

And, above all, does Paul really rely on Deuteronomy when he "condemns" "homosexuality"? It's important that our arguments rely on clear evidence, not on a mishmash of information that is ultimately designed not to challenge us to think deeply, but to stop thought altogether by making us comfortable with our prejudices.

William D. Lindsey

Here today, you say, "It is the case with the most common oral contraceptives, paritcularly 'the pill', that they can be abortifacient as well as contraceptive...."

That is simply untrue. It is misinformation. It is scientific balderdash, of the sort mentioned in a news article today which says that the National Parks Service is selling pamphlets at the Grand Canyon claiming it is only 6000 years old.

Please understand that I'm not impugning your integrity or suggesting that you are deliberately spreading misinformation. I have no doubt that you believe the statement you made. I'm suggesting that you are misinformed, though, because you have theological presuppositions that predetermine your reading of the scientific evidence.

As Frannie and Bob have pointed out, you're relying on some traditional sources--written at time when the biological facts regarding conception weren't known--which mistakenly linked contraception with taking of human life. We now know (and have long known) that this is not the case. Contraception does not end a human life. It prevents conception.

Nonetheless, there has been a kind of psychological subtext running through the Catholic mindset--harking back to those pre-scientific suspicions about contraception--that still tries to link contraception and taking of human life. This subtext has come right out into the open in the "culture of life, culture of death" rhetoric following the last pope. Often without stating its real purpose, it opposes contraception by suggesting that contraception is part of a culture of death--because it represents a form of killing.

The magisterial teaching against contraception has NEVER stated that contraception is forbidden because it is a form of murder, however. It states that contraception is forbidden because it impedes the "natural" function of intercourse, which is defined as conception.

It doesn't help the theological arguments when we muddy them with "scientific" information that is misinformation.

William D. Lindsey

Better go correct wikipedia then. Oh and this site (Planned Parenthood) notes that emergency contraceptives are the same hormones as the pill.

This article (far from the only one) cites the increase in neo natal and infant mortality rates due to contraceptive use during pregnancy. Even Planned Parenthood notes the increase in ectopic pregnancies with POP usage.

Most chemical contraceptives are also abortifacient, whether pre (all verisons of combined or progesterin only pills) or post implantation.) I suggest that your (collective) bias in favor of contraception is preventing you from reading the mainstream scientific sources I have posted. (There are many more links, articles, etc. that I could post if I wished to show what the pro-life groups have uncovered.)

Thus barrier forms of contraception are a lesser evil (although they completely disrupt the act) because they do not have the added possibility of causing an abortion if they fail to prevent fertilization.

I have not been arguing the medieval case that you keep presenting because it is NOT the reason for my objection. (As I have repeatedly stated). Indeed I have been arguing the Magesterial case (which has some Scriptural and Patristic support). I present the Historical opposition of the Church to contraception as evidence that the contraceptive mentality is something rather new in Christianity: NO Christian Church or denomination allowed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Confrence (where the Anglicans permitted it in rare situations, rapidly increased to any situation, followed by almost every denomination over the next few years).

Here Today, I just visited the Planned Parenthood link you provided.

It doesn't say what you state that it says. You state, "Oh and this site (Planned Parenthood) notes that emergency contraceptives are the same hormones as the pill."

The link you provided states, "It contains hormones found in birth control pills and must be started within 120 hours after unprotected intercourse."

Do you not see that those two statements are entirely different? Saying that emergency contraceptives contain hormones found in birth control pills is NOT the same thing as saying that "emergency contraceptives are the same hormones as the pill."

A headache compound can contain both aspirin and caffeine. I can, then, say that it contains substances fuond in an aspirin tablet without saying that it is the same medicine as an aspirin tablet.

If "most chemical contraceptives are abortifacient," as you say, then are hormones by their very nature abortifacient? In that case, did God design the female body so that it contains substances that naturally produce abortions?

It muddies the waters re: contraception to try to equate it with abortion. They are two entirely different actions, and have always been evaluated that way in the Catholic tradition in recent years.

Unfortunately, one of the several destructive effects of the way the "culture of death" rhetoric has been adopted by the JPII generation is to try to revive a totally unscientific suggestion that contraception is a kind of abortion, and/or leads to abortion. This rests on bad science and is untrue. Christian faith requires us to tell the truth, even when it is inconvenient for us to do so, or when the truth explodes our pet theories.

If contraception is a form of abortion, then the magisterium would be hopping all over that link. I haven't read anything in official Catholic teaching which states that contraception is condemned because it is a form of abortion.

You say that no Christian church allowed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth conference. Churches couldn't have addressed the issue of contraception in its later 20th-century form until that point in history because the technology hadn't even been developed--that is, if we are referring to the birth control pill, and that's where the debate is often focused.

I might also note that the churches consistently supported slavery until the 19th century. Moral thinking evolves as historical changes force us to rethink our presuppositions and go back to the scriptures and tradition to re-read them in light of those historical changes. Mere prevalence of a practice for many centuries throughout the tradition does not necessarily argue for its moral legitimacy. If that were the case, then we'd have to conclude that usury is deeply immoral, since it was condemned into the Middle Ages. If we go down that road of condemnation, however, we'd have a lot of trouble justifying our capitalist economic system....

William D. Lindsey

Sorry I am late getting back to the conversation.

No, I don't see a huge difference between "It["Plan B"] contains hormones found in birth control pills" and "emergency contraceptives are the same hormones as the pill". The first states that the two share common elements, and the second states that the elements of the same type (hormones) are used in both pills. The difference lies in the quantity of hormones, which is why one will almost always cause an abortion and the other may cause an abortion (on top of the fact that it would be highly unsafe for the mother to consume the larger dosage of hormones daily).

These hormones are not IN NATURE abortifacient, the introduction of a surplus of them, however, is. It is possible, I suppose for a woman to naturally have an excess of these hormones that would prevent conception or cause miscarriages, but that we would view as a defect (certainly from the POV of Darwinian Evolution, if a specimine cannot procreate it would not be a beneficial mutation, survival of the fittest, and all that).

Is it such a problem that we recognize that a common method of birth control can cause abortions? If it is true, then should we put aside our squeamishness and face the reality that SOME contraceptives are may very well make us liable for murder (morally, if not leagally)? After all, "Christian faith requires us to tell the truth, even when it is inconvenient for us to do so, or when the truth explodes our pet theories."

There are, as I have mentioned, contraceptives that have no risk of being abotifacient (ie condoms) and these, as well as those that can be abortifacient, are condemned IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. The possibility of an abortion is adding a second (or third) cause for grave concern, but it is not the main thrust of the argument, as you have noted.

As far as the 'recent' development of contraceptives: this is patenly false, and I have provided a link to the history of contraceptives going back to the time of Christ, if not before. There are currently three main types of contraception: barriers(condoms, IUDs), oral contraceptives (in which we can include implants that release the same chemicals as in the pill), and spermicides. ALL OF THESE methods were attempted in Aincinet Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Many of the formulas and concoctions used were not very effective, but some did have reputed success, at least enough that they seem to have been widely employed.

Moral development may well exist. For the sake of the discussion I can grant that it does. Now, can you actually make a case FOR birth control, or even a case AGAINST the Church's teaching?

"Now, can you actually make a case FOR birth control, or even a case AGAINST the Church's teaching?"

I think this might be a good exercise for you heretoday, to make a case for the opposite point of view. This was certainly a part of the training I recieved in ethics and moral theology, and I have found it a very useful exercise in helping to clarify and synthesise my own thinking on any given issue. Good debaters understand the benefits of developing arguments for both sides of an issue.

Here today, thanks for your reply. What I'm drawing attention to--and challenging--is your attempt link birth control to abortion. You have made that link explicitly in other postings.

To use the terms of your argument: just about any medicine taken in proportions other than warranted can have undesirable effects. One aspirin can dull pain. Twenty may cause serious internal bleeding.

This is not an argument against the use of aspirin.

There is no logical, sound factual or moral basis for disapproving of artificial contraception on the grounds that it is connected to or produces abortion. The appeal to the "culture of death" phrase is lazy moral thinking. One has to dig for facts before one comes to sweeping judgments. This is why I challenged your statement on another thread that people in your parish must be having abortions to choose the gender of their children, since you see a prevalence of families with two children, one of whom is male and the other female.

If you recall, I suggested that, in order to test that thesis, you might want to delve into the facts--as in doing scientific surveys to see whether what you believe you are seeing is correct, surveys to see whether it's true that many families in the parish have two children, one of whom is male and the other female. Then you'd have to do interviews and other studies to find out if people are deliberately having abortions to choose the sex of their children.

Ethical thinking in the absence of facts can lead to atrocious conclusions--some of which can seriously damage people. We have an obligation to seek facts, because we have an obligation to seek truth.

You say, "As far as the 'recent' development of contraceptives: this is patenly false, and I have provided a link to the history of contraceptives going back to the time of Christ, if not before."

I fear you are misreading what I stated. I spoke of the recent development of the birth-control pill, not of contraceptives in general. And I would still propose that your proof texts are problematic. You've ripped them out of their original context, you haven't told us what these texts mean (or say) in their original language. You are citing texts that speak of drugs that cause sterility as though those texts address a technology discovered only in the 20th century.

I appreciate your point, Here Today. You believe abortion is a serious moral evil. You also think that contraception is somehow linked to abortion. You think that we inhabit a culture of death in which a "contraceptive mentality" leads people to take abortion lightly.

But there is no scientific evidence that contraception and abortion are linked, in the sense that contraceptives actually cause abortions. One can argue against abortion without also arguing against contraception. One can also argue against contraception without resorting to the pre-scientific suspicion that contraception is "really" a form of murder.

Our ethical arguments will be convincing only to the extent that they rest on sound reasoning, on sound use of texts, on facts. When we distort the facts to make them fit our pre-determined beliefes, we undermine the strength of our moral arguments. And when we torture logic to make our moral arguments conform to what we have already decided is true, we convince no one except other true believers.

William D. Lindsey

1) I'm not the one using references to the culture of death.
2) I have repeatedly stated that the case against contraception stands on its own, apart from the case against abortion.
3) I have repeatedly supported my statements that both the arguments against contraception and against abortion can be applied to certain contraceptive methods as they can also be abortifacient. You have accused me of ignoring scientific data which you have NOT provided.
4) I have shown that the forms of birth control (in general principle) used today have been used for centuries, not decades. It is only trhe specific forms that are 'new' and the (im)morality of their use is still argued from the same general principles.

As far as sex selective abortions, I repeatedly stated that is was an assumption based on the improbablility of 75+% of a population resulting in the sterotypical one boy- one girl family, as well as knowledge that such a practice (sex-selective abortion) is used in various parts of the world (actually forbidden in some countries, as there are not enough girls living to their birth). Selective abortion is a routine part of fertility treatments that would otherwise result in multiple births (usually in the 6-8 range), in which only those children the parents want survive.

For the most part the link between contraception and abortion is not in the abortifacient properties of certain contraceptives, but in the mindset that is closed to new life (even if only for a time). An unplanned pregnancy then needs a solution, and abortion is the 'easy' way out.

Please, you want a discussion based on facts, provide some, with sources.

Thanks, Here Today. You say,

For the most part the link between contraception and abortion is not in the abortifacient properties of certain contraceptives, but in the mindset that is closed to new life (even if only for a time). An unplanned pregnancy then needs a solution, and abortion is the 'easy' way out.

Please, you want a discussion based on facts, provide some, with sources."

Can you please provide me with facts and publicly accessible sources that support your statement that the link between contraception and abortion is in a mindset closed to new life?

If those practicing contraception are closed to new life, why do they have children? It would seem to me that the facts--at least on face value, totally contradict your position. Those practicing contraception seem to me not closed to new life. They are simply using technology--as the church allows them to do so in other areas of life--to exercise good stewardship, to choose to conceive a new life when they have the means to take good care of that new life.

Can you please offer facts and sources to support your statement that those practicing contraception have a mindset closed to new life?

William D. Lindsey

I will, once you provide sources that show that the pill cannot be abortifacient, that contraception hasn't been around for millenia, and that the Church Fathers did not condemn Contracption and Abortion.

Sorry, I am done providing sources to people who refuse to reciprocate, refuse to consider the sources, and accuse me of merely proof texting.