Thursday, February 9, 2012

When The Washington Post Was Against Christian Birth Control

With religous liberty under attack via the Obama Birth Control Mandate it might be a good time to actually makes the Catholic case for it's position. It is a delicate balance because at the forefront of this must be the issue of Government inteference and the 1 st amendment. We don't want to fall into the trap that we must convince our position is true to the great masses of the public.

Still I might hit on it today. On that note I saw this 1931 Op Ed From the Washington Post mentioned here at Failing to Connect the Dots on Contraception

But even before such convenient methods surfaced, contraception in previous decades had become progressively more in vogue, even for Christians who had previously strenuously opposed it. The following March 22, 1931 editorial of the Washington Post in the aftermath of the 1930 Episcopalian Lambeth Conference, which spearheaded the acceptance of contraception for Protestants in the U.S., is absolutely inconceivable today:

It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation or suppression of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.

Anyone reading the Post today would consider this a forgery or the result of Internet hacking. But such was once the majority opinion, reflected by the paper. But little by little, almost all Protestant denominations fell in line.

In many ways those predictions make the post the secular Humane Vite that predicted similar consequences.


Anonymous said...

Well I whole heartedly agree that if people claim to believe in God, and claim to believe that the Bible is true, then go against the way that God created their own bodies to practice any sort of birth control they are utter hypocrites. This includes the Catholics with their so-called "non-artificial" birth controls. According to the Bible, the first man to engage in any sort of birth control, Onan, was immediately struck dead by God. And of course he did not have an IUD, or a condom, or a pill. He just pulled it out and shot his wad on the ground, the most natural kind of birth control that anyone could have imagined, but he was struck dead for it, if one is to believe the Bible. What is going on is not about birth control. It is about lying and scheming to defeat the President in the next election. There is no birth control mandate in the United States. That is in Red China, which the republicans gave most favored nation status. There is an effort to insure that all Americans have equal access to reproductive health care. The Catholics might fool many people with the yelling and screaming about a non-existent "birth control mandate", but sooner or later the people will realize that they have been hoodwinked and manipulated by liars.

Anonymous said...

I was just thinking those Duggars on television with 19 children are the only honest "pro-life" people that I know of in this country. The rest are just liars trying to play politics with other people's lives. In their own lives, they go ahead and do as they please, but they are using their politics against other people's lives.

James H said...

I don;t think people are saying this is Red China

But the Churchis MANDATED TO PAY for it which it views as a cooperation with a moral evil

That is the meaning of mandate that everyone is talking about

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and you people should be glad that there is nothing to that "kharma" belief. Otherwise you would find yourself forced to be employed by a Jehovah Witness at the time that you will die without a blood transfusion, and no other way to pay for it than medical insurance that will not pay for YOUR blood tranfusion because the employer says that YOUR blood transfusion would violate HIS religion. You would be getting just what you deserve to lay there and die because the blood transfusion violates someone else's religion.