Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His laws? What is a curse, do you seek as though it were a blessing?… In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks…
I can do this all day folks…
But what does Chrysostom say? First that children (and thus fertility) are a gift from God. I think all of my dear commenters could agree on that. So what’s the corollary? That no children (and thus infertility) are a curse from God. This is made clear in the Scriptures, n’est pas? So if infertility is a curse from God and you take contraceptive medicines or use artificial contraceptives, you are calling down on yourself a forced infertility, a forced curse from God. You are taking what God intends to use to bless you and using it to beg for His curse. Is it any wonder that abortion, chemical contraception, and promiscuous sex are great ways to render yourself permanently infertile?
A child is never a curse. Always a blessing. A blessing that involves work, to be sure, but doesn’t all real blessing?
Don’t make me quote Luther. Please. I hate quoting Luther.
Homesick No More 
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 30, 2007 at 1:31 am
John Jansen
Chrysostom ain’t messin’ around.
I’d be interested to hear some what patristics scholars or moralists make of these words:
You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.
Taken at face value, he’s saying contraception is worse than murder. I’ve heard this argument before, and I wonder now what I wondered then: is it possible that this might be hyperbole employed to illustrate how absolutely flippin’ wrong contraception is?
November 30, 2007 at 2:26 am
Matthew N. Petersen
I think he was talking about abortion. Abortion is worse than murder, not contraception is worse than murder. (In the quote he also talks about contraception, but that particular comment I believe was about “murder before birth” not “medicine of sterility.”
November 30, 2007 at 2:32 am
mattyonke
Matthew,
I, too, was a little confused about where he was addressing contraception and where he was addressing abortion. He obviously refers to both with equal vehemence, but seems to be less than clear when he’s addressing what. Perhaps that’s significant in and of itself?
November 30, 2007 at 3:27 am
Remy
You forgot to mention hot tubs and tighty-whities too. Those are some subtle attempts at contraceptive as well.
On a more serious note, you can’t say this on one side “First that children (and thus fertility) are a gift from God. I think all of my dear commenters could agree on that. So what’s the corollary? That no children (and thus infertility) are a curse from God.” and then push for abstinence as a allowable form of birthcontrol on the other. To only have sex on times when the wife is not ovulating is the only flawless form of birthcontrol. At least using a condom allows God to subvert your plans if it is his good pleasure.
November 30, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Joshua
Guido,
When you’ve got a young couple that’s been married for five or six years at a Catholic church and they’ve only got one child, what happens?
December 1, 2007 at 1:10 am
mattyonke
We use a hermenutic of charity rather than a hermenutic of suspicion.
December 1, 2007 at 1:53 am
John Jansen
Remy said: So what’s the corollary? That no children (and thus infertility) are a curse from God.” and then push for abstinence as a allowable form of birthcontrol on the other.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it’s exactly none of my business, or your business, or that of any minister, priest, bishop, pope, etc., how often a married couple will decide to engage in one-flesh union.
For some, it will be quite often. For others, not so much.
To only have sex on times when the wife is not ovulating is the only flawless form of birthcontrol. At least using a condom allows God to subvert your plans if it is his good pleasure.
As for the first part of what you said, you’re rather missing the point. As I said yesterday in a comment on a previous post: the Catholic Church even recognizes that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a couple sharing one-flesh union even in situations in which it is not possible to conceive a child (e. g., during pregnancy or due to infertility).
Does this contradict the teaching that one-flesh union must be open to the possibility of procreation?
No, because the couple is not deliberately doing anything to render the act sterile.
As for the second part of what you said:
At least using a condom allows God to subvert your plans if it is his good pleasure.
You. Must. Be. Kidding.
Are you seriously proposing that introducing a foreign substance that is specifically intended to vitiate the very purpose of the marital act is actually better than choosing, at a given time, not to engage in the marital act?
December 1, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Joshua
John,
Remy asked about avoiding conception by having sex when conception was not possible, which he understands the RC to not have a problem with. I’d address the difficult portion of his comment before addressing the easy portion.
December 2, 2007 at 2:27 am
Melton
Guido,
You use a hermeneutic of charity on Gibby’s mythical couple, but you would assume that said couple is cursed though, correct?
“So what’s the corollary? That no children (and thus infertility) are a curse from God.”
How is that charitable, again?
December 2, 2007 at 5:40 am
mattyonke
Meltdown,
The hermenutic of charity was in reference to whether the couple was using contraception or not, not whether they were right or wrong if they were using it. Josh’s question, it seemed to me, was about whether people in a Catholic Church would make assumptions about the childless couple which I certainly would try not to.
If a young couple was out in the open about using contraception that would be a whole other matter. In that instance I would try, still with charity, to point them to what the Church teaches and why and at least get them informed about the issue. If they’re informed and still choosing to use contraception, it’s a serious sin and that’s something they’d have to deal with but we’d just have to love them where they’re at while encouraging them towards where they should be.
Hope that helps,
Matt
December 2, 2007 at 8:10 am
jon
How many Catholics in the US have 10 or 15 (or more) kids? My impression is that even most devout Catholics reach a point at which they say to themselves, “We’re more blessed than we know what to do with, so at least for now enough is enough.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve known a lot more large Protestants families than large Catholic families.
December 2, 2007 at 8:43 am
Remy
John, my point is that to call infertility a curse from God and then promote abstinence as an allowable method of birthcontrol on the other causes some violence to the consistency meter. Yes I understand that this doesn’t fall under the letter of the Roman prohibition, but it certainly takes the spirit down a few pegs. The fact remains that abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birthcontrol and thus “you are calling down on yourself a forced infertility” when you practice it on one of the 12 times a year that you could actually get pregnant. But then to go on to claim that the sexual act remains untampered with regarding conception is naive.
And. I. Am. Not. Kidding. Buying a cheap condemn and then rejoicing when the Almighty still calls forth a child is far more true to the spirit than abstaining at the only times a woman can become pregnant. Of course, I don’t encourage Romanists to disobey the Pope. I feel like if you are going to submit yourself to another authority then you should obey him. So I would frown at my Roman friends for this.
I should also mention, I don’t have a dog, so to speak, in this fight. I’ve been married five years and I have three children. So far my form of birthcontrol has been: one at a time. I stick my head in these things because there is no argument here for those of us not under the second father. If the “physical and psychological barrier to the natural sex act” were a legitimate argument it would also be a legitimate argument when I turn it around for icons, which are a physical and psychological barriers to the natural act of prayer.
I do think that the Word provides some excellent arguments against birthcontrol, but what Matt continues to throw at us are arguments that only count for those who submit to the Pope, which, let me say again, I feel very strongly that Romanists should obey. The pope knows what is best for his children and if I ever find out that you or he are in rebellion I would give out some strong words.
So lets imagine the pope tells you of all the blessings you get from eating your veggies and he prohibits hiding them in your napkin or puking them up after eating. Then someone among you comes along and begins catapulting them onto the floor and gets upset at his siblings because they tamper with the natural digestive act when they hide them in their napkin. He then points to his own digestive integrity. Then imagine what the neighbor kids think of this kid when he takes his show on the road.
December 2, 2007 at 9:22 am
mattyonke
Remy,
Though my new post is mostly in response to your previous comments, I think one of the most important things in this debate is JPII’s Theology of the Body. I know you’re at least somewhat familiar with it, but it bears in depth examination.
One of the most intriguing things about it is how he describes the language our bodies speak and how we can tell the truth or tell lies with our bodies. I found this whole idea (and theology of the body in general) to be a step beyond the mere ‘gnosticism is bad, feasting is good’ ethos in the CRECish communities.
I think that ethos is very good and very healthy, but it’s a beginning and the Holy Father took that idea, dipped it in phenomenology, and ran with it to places I’d never even imagined before.
All that is to say, there’s more to understand here than merely ‘Scripture doesn’t prohibit it and I’m a protestant so I can do it.’
And, sincerely, thanks for hanging around and taking the time to post. I appreciate your candor.
In Christ,
Matt
December 2, 2007 at 9:49 am
erin
Remy,
I’m still chuckling over your Freudian slip in spelling condom “condemn”.
As someone who conceived her second child at a time when, by science’s standards, he should have been inconceivable, I think it’s important to note that NFP always leaves room for life. It’s a silly notion to believe that there are only one or two fertile days in a woman’s cycle. For many, the time during which a pregnancy can be achieved can stretch for 7-10 days, making the idea that you could just “skip that one day” and be in the clear much more difficult.
There’s nothing wrong with sex that doesn’t result in conception, but there is something wrong with sex that is mechanically altered so as to ensure that conception doesn’t take place. God provides us with natural rhythms and cycles to naturally order our lives (for example, the natural infertility that comes with breastfeeding)–and those are good. Altering hormones and inserting barriers into the marital union is bad.
–Erin
December 3, 2007 at 4:40 am
Melton
Guido,
To be perfectly blunt, no you didn’t help very much – I’m not trying to be rude, just honest. I knew exactly what you meant. You would be charitable and assume the hypothetical couple was NOT using birth control, just like good little Catholics. But MY point is, according to your original post, by being charitable and granting that they are (supposedly) NOT using birth control, since they only have one child by that point, they are obviously cursed of God. Hence your statement:
“So what’s the corollary? That no children (and thus infertility) are a curse from God.”
Right?
And Erin, I”m not sure that was a freudian slip by remy, he tends to do those things on purpose 😉
December 3, 2007 at 9:02 am
mattyonke
Josh,
Look, all I’m saying is that in the Scripture, infertility is clearly seen as a curse from God. Now, there are certainly instances where people may be infertile not because of a direct curse of God, but it is something that God Himself clearly states is a curse. God uses it as a punishment and a threatened curse. This is undeniable.
So, it’s roughly akin to saying “I’m going to take a pill that will kill my firstborn child, or call a destroy my crops or turn my water source to blood so I can have sex without worrying about children”. Using artificial contraception seeks to attain for yourself something God says is a curse for the sake of consequence-free sex.
And that’s just addressing the immediate surroundings of the act. It doesn’t take into consideration the undeniable long term risks of infertility, a wide range of cancers and stroke that hormonal birth control brings with its promise of sexual freedom.
This also seems like a good time to remind us all that this isn’t some wacky Catholic thing. It was the opinion of literally ALL Christian groups prior to 1930. That’s nearly two millennia of Christian consensus on this issue and we think that now, in this age of sexual confusion unparalleled in history, that this new revelation of the beauty of contraception is the real truth. I just don’t buy it. As Chrysostom’s quote shows, it’s not like contraception is something new.
As for how we would treat a couple who uses contraception, I’d treat them with charity and try to show them what we believe to be the truth about contraception. No different than anyone involved in any other sin. I believe that people practicing homosexuality are calling a curse of God down on themselves too, but I’d still try to treat them with dignity and show them the disorder of their sexual behavior.
Peace out,
Matt
December 3, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Melton
Guido,
Thanks for that. I am kind of with Remy on this one, I don’t have a problem with NOT using contraception. I always had an inner voice in my head swaying me against it, although I didn’t know why. I think SOME OF your comments have helped crystallize why Lacey and I have not used it in some time.
However. I disagree on several points, obviously. I know you would treat a couple charitably who is using contraception – treating it as sin and trying to turn them around on the issue. I never said otherwise. But your original comments seem to assume that if a couple is not able to have children, it MUST be a curse. Of course I agree that it CAN act as a curse, as per the Biblical teaching. But it is not NECESSARILY a curse, as you seem to insinuate. I just think that this is another symptom of your all-or-nothing Catholic theology, which brings itself to bear on a great many issues. If I’m putting words in your mouth, or not espousing your correct position, I apologize – that’s just how it comes acros to little old me. But we can talk about this further elsewhere if you wish.
As for your last point – don’t you think it’s at least POSSIBLE that the reason “all” Christians accepted your arguments against contraception stem from the fact that the “technology” wasn’t very advanced at that time? I mean, I bet that practically all Chrisitan groups didn’t watch TV before the 1930’s either…since it didn’t exist.
December 4, 2007 at 7:01 am
respect
The whole infertility thing as a curse, is bullshit. There are plenty of infertility types of diseases women can get. One of which is Endometriosis, a condition many women dont know they have, whereas if they were to have a baby, it would cure this “infertility”, but if they wait too long, they may never have kids. But you may see this as, a victory as far as prooving that obstaining and birth control clinched this infertility. But fact remains, most women get this when they are 16 years old and are infertile by 18-20, before even getting married. This isnt a curse. Most women that are infertile are that way before they even got out of highschool. Doctors also perscribe birthcontrol to girls that are as young as 13 because they dont have regular periods which could make it so they may never have children. So contraception is also used to allow women to be fertile and have a family of 5 kids.
When speaking of contraception. If you say it is wrong,due to taking away from what god has intended. Obstaining is the same thing. If you are obstaining from sex during her fertile times, you are taking control into your own hands, it is your own form of birth control. They monitor the womans cycle to see when she will be able to conceive, so only having sex during the “safe times” is just the same as contraception, you are getting the “Sex for free” by only having sex during these times. So dont speak about letting gods nature take its course, when by obstaining or pulling out or whatever you non-believers(in contraception) do, provides the same detour contraception provides.
If you describe contraception as getting “sex for free”, then you shouldnt take tylenol, aspirin, or any other drug or surgery, because you are getting “health for free”. Why should you have a headache free head, when you watch a rocky marathon, you should let the natural progression of your body take its course and deal with headaches whenever they come.
Contraception is a gift from the Lord. A piece of technology we were given, just like electricity, indoor plumbing, etc, to make our lives more convenient. Being able to choose when we want to have children, how many, and to be able to prepare for having them. Helen and I waited till we owned a home to have a kid, and it has really been a load off our shoulders, and we have the resources and time to devote to levi. As opposed to those who dont believe in birth control, have a kid on the wedding night, arent prepared, dont have insurance consequently, use medicaid for the delivery, which I, in turn end up paying for their “free delivery”, they cant make the rent, because they didnt have the money due to all the baby expenses they didnt see coming, on and on and on. All this could have been avoided had they chose to prepare themselves for having children.
BTW one of the big contributers to medicaid and taxes increasing to fund this is the unprepared parents having children with no money, or insurance. Then the rich who have insurance and responsibility spring for the bill of all these babies from newlywedded parents who havent even started a life together and find themselves pregnant, and all the pagans who do the same thing without being married. Thought i might add that being that I’ve probably paid for most of all your babies out there.