Talk:Christian views on birth control

Pop culture additions

Alienus,

• 1. If you're not an administrator, then you don't have any right threating to ban anyone.
• 2. Cultural references exist on many Wikipedia articles. There is no reason why it shouldn't be on this page.

Captain Jackson 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen this much reverting of my work before. This article is pretty short for one which so many people seem to care so much about. Captain Jackson 07:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The pop culture info does seem very out of place for this article. CyberAnth 02:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced portions

Much of the information is referenced within the text, e.g. "Pope Pius XI's 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii" or "In 1968 Pope Paul VI released an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae". There are also three direct references. They are html tags rather than formally typed out, but that's an editing issue, not a reference issue. I guess I could understand using the 'fact' tag for specific claims, but I'm puzzled at calling the entire article unreferenced.Lyrl 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous other statements made in the Catholic sections that are not cited. Can anyone more knowledgable than myself on Catholic views provide them? I'd like to get this article fully up to Wikipedia standards and then submit it for peer review. CyberAnth 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Protestant section

This section could really use some expansion, since Protestantism and its views are so diverse. CyberAnth 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I expanded it and removed the Please Expand request. Thoughts? - CyberAnth 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Orgasms and oral sex

There has been some past controversy on these points on this article in the past. I removed the reference because they are simply not the subject of this piece. Catholic opposition to them might be a good addition to articles on those subjects, however, if they are not already. I think that is where the info belongs, not here. CyberAnth 02:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal is a form of contraception. Also considered birth control by some are mutual masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex. All of these acts are condemned by the Catholic Church, and the bit on orgasms explains why. I think that is relevant to this article, because some couples engage in these acts to avoid getting pregnant. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Your reasoning seems sound. Can you perhaps come up with a reference from an official Catholic Church document stating this? I know the Vatican website is utterly replete with official church docs. CyberAnth 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Catechism doesn't come right out and say "no oral or anal sex", but it repeatedly states that all sexual acts must be both unitive and possibly procreative. The procreative bit rules out non-intercourse sex acts. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 2351, 2352, 2363, 2366, 2369, 2370) Would that make a good reference?

I also have a book (The Art of Natural Family Planning) published by the Couple to Couple League (a Catholic organization) that explicitly condemns orgasm outside of intercourse. But being a book rather than an online resource, it's more difficult for other editors to verify, so I'm not sure I should use as the reference in this case. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If the Catechism doesn't come right out and say "no oral or anal sex", but only repeatedly states that all sexual acts must be both unitive and possibly procreative, thus ruling out non-intercourse sex acts, then that is germane but should be stated here without interpretation of the Catechism to make it explicitly say "no oral or anal sex". And the Catechism is certainly a legit ref. CyberAnth 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic philosophy

The version of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_views_on_contraception&oldid=47313646 that contains info from Catholic philosophy is very good and fitting. Why was it removed? CyberAnth 02:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I realize this article contains several instances of weasel words, which I am currently working to remove. Please feel free to step in to do it before I do. CyberAnth 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to make two articles?

Per the Wikipedia article size guidlines, it appears time time to make two articles of this one while making this one somewhat more brief. I plan to do this shortly. Anyone else may feel free to beat me to the task. :-) CyberAnth 08:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has not reached that point yet. There isn't even a size warning on the edit page (look at an article like Jesus. When you hit the edit tab, you will see a size warning at the top). I also think, if the article does get to that point, that we should work on one spin-out article at a time, using the largest section as the one to simplify here and expand in the spin-out (instead of creating 2 or more new articles at once). Just some thoughts.--Andrew c 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed Christians

I introduced this as a delimter to this article to define "Christian" per Nicene creed#Controversy_of_Christian_definition. It was removed. I think it should be placed back in. Moreover, the rest of the article focuses only on views of Nicene Creed adherents so to place the delimiter in is to be accurate. CyberAnth

It adds nothing to the article, except confusion stemming from a theological controversy that doesn't need to be addressed here. The title of the article is "Christian views on contraception" not "Nicene Christian views on contraception" or "Trinitarian Christian views on contraception". I understand the article current does not discuss and Restorationist sects, but is there a reason why we should exclude in the future views of Mormons of Jehovah's Witnesses? Would we need to create another article on top of this one just to include them, if we decide at some point that their views on contraception are relevent? Seriously, I see no reason to make the distinction. There is no need to clarify the word "Christian" in this instance, and not only does it unnecessarily exclude sects, it introduces a theologically dense conflict that is off topic to this article. I would like to know why the current and long standing version of this article is somehow inaccurate? Is there precedent for this destinction on wikipedia (look through the "Christian views" articles here). Anyway, hope this explains my reasoning for removing it.--Andrew c 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The reasons is because it is a very contentious issue to call sects who reject the Nicene Creed "Christian" and to not make the distinction is misleading and transference technique. To not stipulate between Nicene creed adherents and non-Nicene creed adherents is to actually introduce confusion. Self-referencing as "Christian" is far to minimalist of a definition. One might as well confuse Mormon and JW articles by introducing Catholic and Protestant views under a Mormon or JW label. No ecumenical movement of Christians (e.g., the World Council of Churches) in the world accepts non-Nicene Christians as Christians indeed so to include them in an ecyclopedia as such is on shaky ground. If at some point non-Nicene crede adherents who go by "Christian" wish to be included here, it would be completely misleading, confusing, and again transference technique, to not give them a seperate section called something like "Non-Nicene Crede Adherents". Placing the delimiter is an attempt, and I would argue required, to avoid a complex and heated argument! Here is a VERY long and still ongoing one Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#.22Consider_themselves....22 in case you'd like an example. CyberAnth 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are completely correct that it is controversial to call Mormons and JW's Christians. However, I believe you are wrong that it is necessary to avoid confusion to clarify the groups that are NOT controversial when called Christian. I agree, if we ever add LDS, or Adventists, or JWs, we should note that they are not nicene. However, Protestants and Catholics and Anabaptists are all, uncontroversially "Christian", and therefore it is not important to bring up this debate here.--Andrew c 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that, I am satisfied with leaving the delimiter out for now and placing it back in at a point whenever/if ever non-Nicene Crede views are incorporated. Peace. CyberAnth 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Glad we could clear that up. And just because I've been thinking more about this. "Nicene Christianity" and Christianity are basically synonymous, so it would be giving undue weight to a minority view (non-Nicene Christianity) to qualify the mainstream with theologically dense language everytime the word is used.--Andrew c 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to individual conscience group?

I believe there are some couples who follow the Quiverfull belief system for themselves, but do not believe all couples are morally bound to do so. I think (though honestly am not familiar enough to say for sure) that the Duggar family is one example of this. Although this viewpoint is expressed implicitly in the "individual conscience" section, that section focuses mainly on use of birth control. I think it would be nice to mention that some couples follow their conscience to not use birth control, without making any judgements on other couples who do. If that makes sense.

I'm not sure how to integrate that into the current section, though, which is why I'm putting it on the talk page instead of just making an edit. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. What do you think of this change:

FROM:

Some Protestants, however, reject the position that contraceptive use is a matter of conscience. Quiverfull adherents may particularly argue that the Bible commands their position for all Christians. For example, Charles D. Provan argues,

TO:

Some Protestants, however, reject the position that contraceptive use is a matter of conscience. 'Although some Quiverfull adherents accept that birth control use is a matter of individual consconscience, other such adherents may argue that the Bible commands their position for all Christians. For example, Charles D. Provan argues,

I like it. Thank you. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. I appreciate your input to my additions. CyberAnth 06:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How to improve this article?

I'd like to get this article really tight and submit it for good article review and status. Here are some things I am thinking should happen before that.

1. All assertions missing references need them
2. The sub-section Christian_views_on_contraception#Background needs to be expanded
3. The Catholic views section - what about a section on the philosophical debates on this subject? There used to be one in this article but it was removed and completely unreferenced
4. Additional editor input/feedback on all sections. Is anything important being left out? Emphasized wrongly, too strongly, or not enough? Etc.
5. Links section needs some work
6. The Intro needs some expansion and improvement so it gives a better overview of the whole article
7. Others?

Thoughts?

CyberAnth 06:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Papal quote

John Paul II, 17 July 1994:

“ The Church's teaching about "responsible parenthood" is based on this essential anthropological and ethical foundation. Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point, as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so.

Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfills one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.

Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may be even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.

”

Sources are http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/churchteaching.php and http://www.freehomepages.com/nostradamus/conjugalove.htm

This might be good to work in.

CyberAnth 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Onan picture

The second picture is more tasteful, though I'm not sure either one of them adds much to the article. The subcaption is informative and relevant, I just am not connecting to the image itself. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any better ideas for an image? CyberAnth 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Views within Reformed Protestantism

In the late 1990s there was an ongoing discussion of this issue in the smaller presbyterian denomination known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. An issue of the denominational magazine (New Horizons) was dedicated to discussion of whether birth control was permissible. For ongoing issues, letters to the editor were written back and forth between those opposing birth conrol and those condoning it as a decision made between husband and wife. Such sharp disagreements emerged over this issue (and over the celebration of Christmas) that soon the editorship of the magazine changed, and the magazine's emphasis changed from emphasizing the diversity in the denomination to emphasizing was unites the denomination. I'm sure you may be able to find some of those issues to add to the protestant views section.Gregory Y

Facinating! CyberAnth 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on quote and image use

I have posted at the village pump to try and get some more discussion here. I find the use of quotes and images rather unorthodox. Do we really need internet promo-headshots of those being quoted? And do we really need so many quotes? Wikipedia should not be a collection of quotes (that's wikiquote), but instead concise encyclopedia articles summarizing our cited sources (quotes can help, but shouldn't be the meat of an article). These are my concerns, and hopefully some 3rd parties will arrive to agree or disagree with me.--Andrew c 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to reduce the number of quotes through summarizing and paraphrasing but will not get to it until sometime after the New Year. CyberAnth 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fullquiver.jpg

Image:Fullquiver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnpiper.jpg

Image:Johnpiper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Onan died long before Deuteronomy was written

Sin of Onan

most see Onan's real sin as failure to fulfill the terms of his Levirate marriage (Yibbum), even though the Bible says failure to fulfill this term is humiliation not death, according to Deuteronomy 25:5-10.[51]

The statement here makes it seem as if Onan was commanded by God to be living by the Law of Moses. The Yibbum as established in the Law was generations later than Onan's time. It was Onan's father Judah that commanded Yibbum, not God. And was Onan's pretense and rape (sex by pretense) of Tamar who'd just suffered a triple pain (husband just died, he was childless and she's still childless). If failure to Yibbum was the crime Onan was killed for, then why wasn't Judah also killed for not allowing his 3rd son to preform it? And besides that, The Law added quite a few limits to punishments. Eye for an eye is a famous limitation (as in, only an eye for an eye and no more than an eye). The Hebrews, after the Law was given, lived under its rule and protection. After the Law was fulfilled, Christians were no longer under its rule but also not under its protection. Case and point, Ananias and Sapphira pretended to donate the proceeds of their land to the church but kept some back. They also were struck dead, and a twofer no less. Both parties pretended to do the right thing outwardly but tried to secretly reneg. Both parties premeditated their ruse. Both parties tried to get their pleasure without the responsibilities. Both parties were pioneers in their crimes (1st fake donation for their eras) and so had to be made an example of. Neither party was under the protection of the Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.248.53 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint beliefs

It should be noted that for over 120 years artificial birth control was against official LDS Church teachings, and remains against the teachings of most 'Mormon Fundamentalist' groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeyjaggle (talk • contribs) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Jeremy R. Pierce quotation

I removed the quotation by "Jeremy R. Pierce." I don't know why the views of a relatively unknown PhD student are placed on this page next to well-known evangelicals, to whom his opinion is then compared (e.g. Rainey, Dobson, Jordan, Mohler, Payne). For this reason, the quote seems out of place in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.168.178 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quiverfull#Removed_Jeremy_R._Pierce_quotation Parableman (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic: current view

At the end of the "Current View" section of, "Roman Catholic Church", I have added: “For an anthropological (non-religious) evaluation of the effect of contraception on marital love, see C. Burke: "Married Love and Contraception" Osservatore Romano Oct. 10, 1988"I think it would be helpful to add indirect web-reference, e.g. “(this can be consulted at www.cormacburke.or.ke)”, or a direct link. My reasons are as follows: 1) The article is by a well-known canonist-theologian. It is original in that it does not argue from any religious premises but simply weighs in exclusively human terms the effect of contraception on married love. 2) The Osservatore Romano as the official Vatican newspaper, is well-known to be very selective in what it chooses to publish. Publication there (especially on a controverted theme) is a clear indication that the article in question is considered to make some new contribution to more better articulating the Catholic viewpoint (the newness in this article consists mo doubt in its anthropological and not theological analysis). The Vatican website does not carry Osservatore Romano articles, so we are dealing with something of interest which the average reader cannot access except through Burke's website. There is a special reason why I bring this up for discussion here. My admiration for Wikipedia had been growing; and some ten weeks ago I put in a few contributions - including some references to articles by Cormac Burke, a former Judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Catholic Church) with a lot of publications in both the canonical and the theological fields (many available only on his website: cormacburke.or.ke). Ilkali jumped on this as spamming (see my Talk Page) and deleted the lot. Maybe my initial inserting was inept (being new at the process); but I denied and deny there was any intention of spamming, that is, of linking for REASONS OTHER THAN MERIT. With lkali, and then with Jaysweet who seemed to take over, I tried to have the MERIT of the articles debated, especially the two outstanding ones: on Concupiscence and this one on Contraception. Over two months, they have evaded even a minimal debate. Neither has taken the trouble to read the article (cf. Jaysweet's last, where he thinks it is a book). Jaysweet says his stance is simply an exercise of necessary editorial control. I can only regard it as thought control or deliberate censorship. I am informing Jaysweet of this. If any other editor objects to the insertion I have made, and further to the idea of linking, I would ask him or her to produce reasoned arguments a) why the article cannot be regarded as having any merit as a contribution to this debated question, and b) why one does not want to facilitate reference through linking to it.Finisklin (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"and some ten weeks ago I put in a few contributions - including some references to articles by Cormac Burke". Your edit history will show that almost all of your edits on this account, up to the point that I contacted you, were insertions of references to Burke's work, some of which (eg, your addition to God), were indisputably inappropriate. There is a clear conflict of interest. Ilkali (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet and Ilkali: Following Jaysweet’s advice, I opened this discussion page. The issue for discussion is clear. Is Burke’s article of sufficient merit to warrant a link to the only website where it is available? If it is, then, according to Wiki’s own definitions, the inclusion of the link is not spamming. For more than two months, you two have refused to discuss this issue. Why? Perhaps you have read the article and don’t agree with it (which would not surprise me - but that is your freedom of opinion. Plenty of others consider it the best article they have read on the topic. Its publication in the official Vatican newspaper is no small sign of how it is considered). Or else, as I suspect, you have not bothered to read it (Jaysweet thinks it is a book!), and simply wish to suppress it or make practical consultation of it impossible. Whatever the reason for this, if you don’t enter into a serious debate about the MERIT of the article, you are engaging in unthinking or deliberate censorship, and blocking the free communication of information.Finisklin (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I last looked at the page to which this discussion refers, someone (Alkali?) has removed my entry, without any discussion on ITS MERIT. This refusal to discuss suggests prejudice - also on a topic where I understand some persons may well be prejudiced. But does prejudice exclude discussion? Alkali: your reference to the ‘God interview” is beside the point. I long ago agreed that that insertion was inappropriate. That is not what we are discussing now. I have reinserted my ref to Burke’s article - without making any direct link to his site. If you think this particular article lacks sufficient merit to be referred to in this way, then would you please enter the spirit of discussion and say WHY? Otherwise you ARE censoring an opinion that has considerable credentials in favor of its inclusion.Finisklin (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Protestant views

The Protestant views section is very complex because of issues surrounding Protestant pluralism. I am therefore tempted to fork the article into a smaller but more relevant article on Protestant social doctrine. ADM (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church

Along with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, many people would have a problem with labeling the Unification Church as Christian. In any case, I have found evidence that suggests that Moonie leaders have opposed contraception, and might be using their sizable media influence (UPI, Washingtonn Times, etc) to give support to the established positions of the Roman Catholic Church [1] ADM (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are not generally considered Christian, so I wonder why they have been included in this document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.202.176 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On Eastern Orthodoxy

Ok, first off, there is no such thing as a CONSENSUS on contraception in Orthodoxy. Let me first say what an official Orthodox Church view is. An official Orthodox Church view is an opinion of a Church Synod (i.e. the Synod of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church) or an opinion of a Church Synaxis (same as above, only the Synod doesn't have a Primate -- Patriarch, Primate Archbishop etc.). Even as such this is just a Theological Opinion, not a doctirne. When several Autocephalous Orthodox Churches hold the same theological opinion (given by their Synods) for many long years, if these opinions are examined by the Synods of all other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches and all agree, then this is a consensus, and it is doctrine. However, even this is not as powerful a doctrine as is a decision taken by an Ecumenical Council, the last of which took place in 787. An opinion by a Patriarchate, or a Metropolitanate, or an Archbishopric is NOT the view of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church on things. It may reflect the opinion of a particular Bishop (in the large sense of the word), for example the current Patriarch of Moscow, which may change with the next Patriarch of Moscow. Also the opinion of a group of Bishops of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church is not the opinion of that Church. It's just what it is: the opinion of a group of Bishops, as long as those Bishops don't constitute the Church Synod. Now that we're here: the Autocephaly of the Orthodos Church in America is not recognized by any other Orthodox Church save the Patriarchate of Moscow. Therefore the official opinions of the OCA, given by its Synod are for most of the Orthodoxy not opinions of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church, but the opinions of several Bisops of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Now there are a lot of practices and beliefs that have ALWAYS (after 787) been the same ALL OVER ORTHODOXY but have never been officially formalised. That is also consensus, thus doctrine, untill those opinions are challanged by an opinion of an Orthodox Hierarch (whether Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch, or an Hierarch without seat, so a Bishop in the larger sense of the word). Ok so on contraception: numerous church books for preparation of Confessions throughout Orthodoxy and throughout at least recent history (since the 1700s), books approved by various Bishops or Synods, have contained the sin of preventing conception. This was held as a non-formalised view by most Hierarchs untill recently. Now there seems to be a controversy inside the Patriarchate of Moscow where, the Patriarch of Moscow holds one view, and the Bishops of the Autonomous OCA hold a different view. If the Church Synod of a Church of Moscow were to formally hold that contraception (as a general idea) is sinful, then for most of the Orthodox (those belonging to a Church that doesn't recognise the Autocephaly of the OCA), the controversy would be over. As far as I'm acquainted with Orthodox views and politicking, I'd say that there is a possibility that the Partiarchate of Antioch, if it were to examine this matter, would hold a view similar to the OCA or even more liberal.

Humanae Vitae

The links to the Humanae Vitae article are not working (I'm having trouble editing and correcting it).

Twillisjr (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Lutheran position on contraception given by a weekly newspaper editor

I removed the position given by the editor of a weekly newspaper editor in the Lutheranism section of the article. I would remove the position of the chief editor of The New York Times, unless he was a highly respected Christian or Lutheran scholar or leader, or unless he was somehow highly involved in a convention to make or clarify the Lutheran church's position on contraception. I would even remove the position of the editor of the largest Lutheran newspaper in the world, unless he had qualifications beyond being a newspaper editor, however, he would still have to talk about the views of Lutheranism rather than his own personal views. Even if an editor has an extensive knowledge of Lutheranism or an education in Lutheranism, in my opinion, he must be a respected scholar or an important Lutheran leader to have anything relevant to say. This article is about the entire church's view on contraception, not an individual's view.

If one deems that this person's views are relevant despite my comments above, there are additional reasons not to include these particular views. There is no indication that the newspaper is highly influential or widely read. While it may be a long running publication, it does not seem to have a large circulation given its data on Alexa.com (check the data details). Even if the newspaper subscriptions are mostly on paper, I would still expect much greater online traffic for a newspaper of substantial size.

Finally, in the "about us" section of his website, the editor writes, "Promote a Twenty-First Century Reformation because the major have departed further from God's Word than Rome did 500 years ago at the first Reformation." This quote is his entire "vision statement". I am not try to take anything out of context. However, there is more information on his views in the "mission statement" and "strategy" sections of that page. I believe that the word "major" in the quote may mean the majority of Lutherans or the majority of Protestants. Either way, this is a rather radical position. It suggests that his position on contraception may not reflect the view of the Lutheran clergy or Lutherans as a whole. The newspaper's website is located at christiannewsmo dot com.

If anyone disagrees with my removal of the material, please feel free to express your comments below. If you want a response from me, please leave a notice on my user talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible

To my surprise, the main body of the text has zero hits for the word 'Bible'. Where did these views on contraception come from, are they not Biblical? Renard Migrant (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christian views on contraception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060511180434/http://www.freehomepages.com:80/nostradamus/conjugalove.htm to http://www.freehomepages.com/nostradamus/conjugalove.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051005212052/https://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/abstinence/ to http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/abstinence/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Christian views on contraception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080905223156/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html to http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090304123934/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#III
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090304123934/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#III
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061015192340/http://www.harrisinteractive.com:80/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=608 to http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=608
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060929001942/http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/pdf/study01.pdf to http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/pdf/study01.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071007160017/http://www.rcrc.org/calltojustice/perspectives_pharmacy.php to http://www.rcrc.org/calltojustice/perspectives_pharmacy.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927033751/http://www.cmcrosedale.org/about/beliefs.shtml to http://www.cmcrosedale.org/about/beliefs.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100318130654/http://www.catholic.com:80/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051126041156/http://www.familylife.com:80/fltoday/default.asp?id=5867&page=72&search=&strMonth=&strDay=&strYear=&guests=&keywords=&showType= to http://www.familylife.com/fltoday/default.asp?id=5867&page=72&search=&strMonth=&strDay=&strYear=&guests=&keywords=&showType=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225120812/http://www.epm.org:80/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/index.shtml to http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/index.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061130200513/http://www.theocentric.com/relationships/parenting/responsible_family_planning.html to http://www.theocentric.com/relationships/parenting/responsible_family_planning.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070204052122/http://www.contra-mundum.org:80/cm/cm09.pdf to http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/cm09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ELCA View Misrepresented

The paragraph, Lutheranism, begins with the sentence, "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America allows for contraception in the event the potential parents do not intend to care for a child.[48]", citing "Journey Together Faithfully: ELCA Studies on Sexuality, Part One"

There are two problems:

1. The sentence is not an adequate summary of the statement in "Journey Together". The accurate quote is "When a woman and man join their bodies sexually, both should be prepared to provide for a child, should conception occur. When that is not their intention, the responsible use of safe, effective contraceptives is expected of the male and the female. Respect and sensitivity should also be shown toward couples who do not feel called to conceive and/or rear children, or who are unable to do so." Also, the quote is set in the context of a much larger document that provides a much richer treatment.

2. "Journey Together" is not an official pronouncement of the ELCA. It is a study document, intended for the use of congregations and individuals in their efforts to understand this subject. For an official position, one should turn to the ELCA Social Statement, "Abortion" which says, "Whenever sexual intercourse occurs apart from the intent to conceive, the use of contraceptives is the responsibility of the man and of the woman."

These statements give a very different color to the topic. Far from merely "allowing" contraception, the ELCA says that contraception is a "responsibility" when conception is not intended.

7802mark (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)