Natural Family Planning Contradicts Scripture

April 24, 2009

Bread From Heaven: “Because the pleasure of the marital embrace was created by God for babies & bonding.”

Q. If the “marital embrace” is only for babies and bonding and and “Anytime the pleasure of the sexual act is obtained while actively, purposely or incidentally excluding either of these goods, it is a grave sin.” Is it a sin to have the “marital embrace” if there is no chance of conception such as after a woman has reached menopause?

A. No. That is natural and a part of God’s created order. It is still open to conception, although highly unlikely. But, don’t forget Sarah and Elizabeth both conceived in their old age by the will of God.

Q. But according to the statement, sexual activity after menopause would be “purposely or incidentally excluding either of these goods” since “incidentally” means not intentionally.

A. That is a very good point. Then, perhaps, incidentally is the wrong word but I used it with homosexual activity in mind. Because they are not engaging in the activity in order to avoid conception but only pursuing pleasure, the act prevents conception b/c it is unnatural. I am open to suggestions. And I will think about how to reword that. Thank you very much.

Q. So, that would cause all sexual intercourse between husband and a wife that does not work towards conception a sin.

A. No, that is not what the Church teaches at all. If it were, then infertile couples, women with necessary hysterectomies, women in menopause, men with no or low sperm count etc. would have to be celibate. This is not the case. The purpose of the marital embrace is for babies and bonding, both. Conception must not be removed from it for selfish reasons.

Q. Family planning or abstaining from sex during the fertile times which is written as ok, contradicts these scriptures because you are not to deny your spouse sex except when both have agreed for prayer.

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations.

A. In our culture the right to sex is deemed to be absolute. Self-denial of sexual pleasure is thought to be ridiculous (except perhaps beastiality, incest, and pedophilia -the last taboos) At one time, not too long ago we had many more taboos -pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, pornography, even contraception in addition to beastiality, incest, and pedophilia. How much longer before these also become normative in our culture?

What translation are you using? Most of the respected translations do not interpret the Greek as “not deprive”. The negative is nowhere in the sentence. Rather it is stated positively.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (NASB)

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. (NIV)

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (KJV)

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (NKJV)

Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. (Contemporary Eng. Version)

To the wife, the husband the debt let him pay and likewise also the wife to the husband. (Literal Greek)

The Husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (RSV)

should not deprive” should not be interpreted “as all demands for sex should be met lest one feel deprived

Your interpretation of I Cor. 7:3 is influenced by our culture. Because, the Protestant churches began to accept contraception in the early 1900’s they have lost the Christian perspective of sexual intimacy–Total Self-Giving. When a married couple indulges in the pleasure while practicing contraception they cannot be totally self-giving to their spouse. One or both are saying, with their bodies, while using a contraceptive, “I reject your fertility.” This subtle spiritual reality plays itself out in various subtle ways. For instance, the one with the strongest sex drive is freed to be more demanding of having sexual needs met and the other can begin to feel used. This is not conducive to a long and happy marriage.

For the difference between NFP and Contraception please click HERE

To read Humanae Vitae click HERE


Babies For Jihad!

July 13, 2008

From Jihad Watch: Babies for Jihad!

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – About 2,000 Islamist women gathered at the radical Red Mosque in the Pakistani capital on Wednesday and vowed to raise their children for holy war, days after a suicide bomber killed 18 people after a similar rally.

Chanting slogans of “jihad is our way”, burqa-clad women, some with babies, listened to fiery speeches from the daughter of the mosque’s jailed cleric on the eve of the anniversary of a commando raid on the complex in which more than 100 people died.  (READ ALL)

Ultimately, this is how they WILL win if they do.

They have children, we have utterly rejected our fertility in favor of comfort.

The next time you see a large family rather than make some smart alec comment about “You know what causes that, don’t you?” or “Get cable already!”

THANK THEM and pray for them.


Does This Sound Like The Episcopal Church?

May 3, 2008

Does Episcopalianism today look anything like what we read about here? Would an Episcopalian from 1931 PECUSA recognize 2008’s TEC?

Where will your church be in 20 years? What about 50? What about 78?

Which Church (like Jesus who is “the same yesterday, today and forever) is advocating the same, no matter how unpopular?

From TIME magazine:

Monday, Jan. 26, 1931
Birth Control

The American Birth Control League invited 30 Protestant Episcopal bishops to its convention in Manhattan last week. Not one bishop appeared, although their Triennial General Convention at Denver next September is certain to consider birth control in echo to the last Lambeth Conference of bishops of and affiliated with the Church of England, which discreetly approved the movement (TIME, July 14 & Aug. 25). Nonetheless there were several preachers of various denominations among the 200 delegates who attended the convention. Also-present were a few doctors. Conspicuously absent were women who revel in tales of their own childbearing, women too prudish to discuss procreation in any manner, Catholic women obedient to the Pope’s denunciation of any hindrance to conception (TIME, Jan. 19). Last week’s meeting lacked the vigor of previous conventions. Some speakers interpreted the Pope’s denunciatory encyclical as favorable to birth control. “It paves the way for the inevitable fight over what is one of the most important biological findings in history”—Professor Julian Sorell Huxley of London. Other speakers and a formal resolution politely denounced the recent White House Conference on Child Health & Protection (TIME, Dec. 1) for not mentioning birth control at all. Dr. Ira Solomon Wile of Manhattan called the White House Conference “a total, a complete and excellently devised demonstration of an ostrich policy. This is unjust to the ostrich, however, as it does not bury its head quite so deeply.” Otherwise the birth controllers were placid. They reiterated an old boast that their movement has been endorsed by various sectional conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Congregational Churches of Connecticut, the Universalist “General Convention, the American Unitarian Association, the Lambeth Conference. During ten years of formal organization Birth Control has developed an American League, state leagues in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; local groups in California. Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland. North Carolina and Ohio; a Committee for Federal Legislation on Birth Control: and 58 big-city clinics for contraceptive advice.

Where will you be in 78 years?


What’s Wrong With Contraception?

April 26, 2008


Q. Why is Natural Family Planning OK but contraception is a grave sin? What is the difference?

A. The difference is that one is indulgence in pleasure and the other practices self control. Both methods have the same effect, limiting family size, but that does not make them equal morally. For instance, if Grandma is terminally ill you could kill her or allow her to die naturally. The end result is the same but the moral difference could not be greater. Never do evil so that good may come.

The couple who practices NFP abstains from pleasure in order to limit family size while the contracepting couple indulges in pleasure stripped from its meaning and purpose.

The NFP couple practices total self giving love in their union but the contracepting couple rejects the fertility of their mate and so the union is incomplete.

God designed sex and eating to be pleasurable so that we would not forget to procreate and nourish our bodies. Stripping the pleasure of sex away from its God-given purpose is disordered just like attempting to get the pleasure out of eating but avoiding the natural purpose by throwing up after every meal.

God created the marital union to be a tri-unity of pleasure, bonding and openess to children. The attempt to extract pleasure and bypass the purpose of sex and eating is called lust and bulimia.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,