Though I don't have a moral objection to all forms of birth control (there are some obvious problems with some of them), I have to admit I have a hard time answering posts like this. Of course, there is also this wise post (hat tip to Amy's Humble Musings) that says, "I don't know how many children people should have. I do know we should pray a whole lot more about it."
Pray for the Kennedys. (And wow, what a letter.)
Today Saint Fillan's Hand Probably Glowed.
And, finally, don't you wish you could go to Ma Torg's King's Day Party? They even had a Lord of Misrule! Two of them!
Them's the links.
peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell
5 comments:
I have hesitated in posting this comment, but I think it is something in which the modern church (Protestant, really) has fallen down on so I will put my neck out.
I think a lot of what people bring up about stewardship and being wise about how many children we have is more to do with our own control issues. I do not say this as condemnation. I was so there, and still sometimes struggle with it.
My research both from within the church and from such groups as Margaret Sanger's shows that there was not a single Christian entity, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant which approved of artificial contraception for anyone until 1930 and Lambeth. The earliest Church teachings (the Didache) explicitly forbade the use of them, even the reformers were quite outspoken about the sinfulness of it (Luther and Calvin were particularly blunt about it) and I have yet to find a single orthodox theologian, writer or minister who defended or supported the use of artificial contraception prior to this past century. Nor has anyone else been able to give a name or citation. Margaret Sanger, herself, wrote about the difficulty she had in getting in to Protestant churches to convert them to birth control as they all, to a one, saw it as evil and equated it with abortion - she used this "freedom" as a way to further wedge Protestants and Catholics, as she had a particular hatred of Catholicism.
I think there is a great social argument that can link artificial contraception to a looser view of marriage, the responding divorce rate amongst Christians (as well as the world as a whole) and the current drive for same s*x marriage.
It is probably foolish to write this in a comment, as there is so much more to say and there isn't a lot of room for questions back and forth. I am convinced that this is a hugely significant departure from Christianity, especially when one considers that such disparate groups as Baptists, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and others who could not agree on anything except the divinity of Christ, agreed on the prohibition on artificial contraception.
I have struggled a lot with contraception in general (including NFP...I actually think NFP can be worse than AC because it keeps women from having sex when they want it most EVERY MONTH. Not good for marriage).
As a metropolitan of the OC told me once, "It is wrong to say 'no' to children. However, just as God gave childbearing as a gift; he also gave logic and reason. To place one above the other is not good."
I do believe it is poor 'scholarship' to use loose historical generalizations to argue against artificial birth control. One, do you even know what types of birth control, the church historically was against? Birth control throughout history has been mostly abortificant by nature (potions and herbs and 'magic'). Could this knowledge change the nature of the argument?
Another thing most people aren't aware of is that traditionally in Christianity, married couples fasted on Wednesdays AND Fridays AND during Advent AND Lent AND before St Peter and Paul AND before the Dormition of Mary---and this fasting was from food AND S.E.X. So, in a sense, natural family planning was sorta of mixed in with the prayer life as is.
I like one priest who wrote that "If a couple is not ready to have a child when they get married, they should probably wait to get married." After a child has been born, it is easier to then more wisely consider when to add subsequent children because you then have an understanding of what a child requires.
That was a very rambling response. Sorry.
I think saying that they didn't have the same kind of birth control that we do now is much like saying they didn't have the same kinds of h*m*s*xual relationships that we do now.
I'd also point out that most modern birth control is still abortifacient.
I'd further point out that birth control, the term, was coined by the eugenicists and is a rather negative term and policy, which carries other connotations besides simply contraception.
Further, I do not see how one can argue that abstaining a couple days a week, plus during Lent, plus on certain saints' days (not to mention before the Eucharist) is any less "damaging" to the marital relationship than doing so 5-10 days out of the month. Especially since one only abstains those days if one is avoiding pregnancy. One presumes that at least during some of the traditional fast days fall during the times a wife would most want to engage in those acts.
I trust I will not have to have the discussion about whether abstaining is licit, since there are at least two scripture passages which reference it, and the examples mentioned are explicit direction from the Church to abstain.
Also, for those keeping score, the traditional fast days add up to about 216 days a year, if we go by the earlier date of Advent in the earlier Church, 212 if we go by the modern 4 Sundays, I averaged the shortest and longest times of Advent, and include the 12 hours before the Sunday Eucharist. In contrast, the maximum number of days (assuming about 10 days, rather than 5 or 6) of abstinence from NFP add up to 120 days.
Again, this does not account for those people who wouldn't be abstaining because of trying to or an openness to having more children. Nor does this account for nursing mothers who wouldn't, necessarily, have to abstain nearly as much in a year either.
Hi Ranee and Ma Torg -
thanks for your comments, especially for disagreeing so graciously.
I do have to agree that the Catholic version of NFP seems to me more morally fraught than simple barrier birth control. The only permissible reason that St. Paul gives for abstaining is "for prayer" (which seems to fit in with abstaining on fast days), not "for avoiding pregnancy". As Ma Torg point out, if you follow the NFP model, the wife misses out on all the really fun days (for as long as you're avoiding pregnancy).
I'd also agree that there's a difference between ABC that is abortificient and barrier methods - most of which did not exist prior to the 20th century (minus a sheepskin condom here or there - expensive!).
Also, the mechanism of conception wasn't understood until recently, so a ban on ABC was erring on the side of caution: they didn't know if ABC was preventing conception or killing the conceptus, so they had to be careful. I do think that new knowledge changes the argument in this case, though I admit that depends on why ABC was prohibited. If it was prohibited for fear of committing murder, than the new knowledge does make a difference, because now we know that some methods (barrier, sterilization) don't cause murder to be committed.
Ma Torg, I like what your metropolitan and your other priest said. I do think Christian couples ought, as a rule, to have children. But I also have seen marriages that have become overburdened by children; where the parents really don't have the capacity to parent well the children that they have.
I suppose I'd say it's not a light decision, it's not one where we ought to automatically follow our culture's lead, but that it is a decision that we're allowed to make. It does seem to me to be an issue of stewardship - how would the Lord have us use our bodies and our energies? I guess I'd say that as not all are called to be teachers, etc., not all are called to be mothers of 20. At least, I think that's where I'm at. What would I say to Susanna Wesley though, eh? Maybe sometime I should do a whole post on it, eh? Although, I shy back from doing that because I'm really not truly convinced that there is one right answer - other than "pray about it a lot and obey what He tells you" (it's not explicitly addressed in the creeds or in scripture), and it seems like a "if your brother is convicted about eating meat" sort of an issues. I don't want to push anyone on that sort of thing.
Anyway, though we don't entirely agree, thank you so much for adding to the discussion.
Post a Comment