The Catholic Route to Birth Control

[ialmisry]

The intent of the couple is what determines whether there is openness to life.

Here's where I get confused. If a couple uses NFP with the intention to prevent children for a particular period of time, what is the conclusion about openness to life for that particular time period?

The answer to this is very important because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

by whom is the question.

I ask that it be published here and then I will refrain from any other comment on birth control in this thread, please.

1. There is no! precept in the Catholic Church against continence in marriage, meaning that there is nothing in Catholic morality that precludes a couple from deciding not to engage in conjugal lovemaking, sex.

Raises the question, why are they married? That is against the nature of marriage.  As our Lord points out, citing Genesis.

And IIRC the Vatican does forbid this, when it suppressed the Celtic form of monasticism of couples living "as brother and sister" rather than entering the monastery and convent. There are also canons against having "sisters" in the same house.

2.  And in the inverse, according to the unitive principle of the sacrament of marriage, there is no precept against the couple having intercourse, conjugal lovemaking, at OTHER periods from the fertile period.

3.  Openness to life NECESSARILY involves the act of conjugal sex.  IF you are not engaging in the sex act, you cannot be accused of being closed off to life.

Sure you can. Much of what St. Jerome says in his praise of virginity and his hatred of children are among the most eloquent proof.

I now direct the attack against the passage in which, wishing to show your cleverness, you institute a comparison between virginity and marriage. I could not forbear smiling, and I thought of the proverb, did you ever see a camel dance? Are virgins better, you ask, than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were married men? Are not infants daily fashioned by the hands of God in the wombs of their mothers? And if so, are we bound to blush at the thought of Mary having a husband after she was delivered? If they find any disgrace in this, they ought not consistently even to believe that God was born of the Virgin by natural delivery. For according to them there is more dishonour in a virgin giving birth to God by the organs of generation, than in a virgin being joined to her own husband after she has been delivered. Add, if you like, Helvidius, the other humiliations of nature, the womb for nine months growing larger, the sickness, the delivery, the blood, the swaddling-clothes. Picture to yourself the infant in the enveloping membranes. Introduce into your picture the hard manger, the wailing of the infant, the circumcision on the eighth day, the time of purification, so that he may be proved to be unclean. We do not blush, we are not put to silence. The greater the humiliations He endured for me, the more I owe Him. And when you have given every detail, you will be able to produce nothing more shameful than the cross, which we confess, in which we believe, and by which we triumph over our enemies.
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.
And now that I am about to institute a comparison between virginity and marriage, I beseech my readers not to suppose that in praising virginity I have in the least disparaged marriage, and separated the saints of the Old Testament from those of the New, that is to say, those who had wives and those who altogether refrained from the embraces of women: I rather think that in accordance with the difference in time and circumstance one rule applied to the former, another to us upon whom the ends of the world have come. So long as that law remained, Genesis 1:28 Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth; and Cursed is the barren woman that bears not seed in Israel, they all married and were given in marriage, left father and mother, and became one flesh. But once in tones of thunder the words were heard, 1 Corinthians 7:29 The time is shortened, that henceforth those that have wives may be as though they had none: cleaving to the Lord, we are made one spirit with Him. And why? Because He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife. And there is a difference also between the wife and the virgin. She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Why do you cavil? Why do you resist? The vessel of election says this; he tells us that there is a difference between the wife and the virgin. Observe what the happiness of that state must be in which even the distinction of sex is lost. The virgin is no longer called a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:34 She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. A virgin is defined as she that is holy in body and in spirit, for it is no good to have virgin flesh if a woman be married in mind.
But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband's approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a show of endearment? The virgin's aim is to appear less comely; she will wrong herself so as to hide her natural attractions. The married woman has the paint laid on before her mirror, and, to the insult of her Maker, strives to acquire something more than her natural beauty. Then come the prattling of infants, the noisy household, children watching for her word and waiting for her kiss, the reckoning up of expenses, the preparation to meet the outlay. On one side you will see a company of cooks, girded for the onslaught and attacking the meat: there you may hear the hum of a multitude of weavers. Meanwhile a message is delivered that the husband and his friends have arrived. The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house. She has to see to everything. Is the sofa smooth? Is the pavement swept? Are the flowers in the cups? Is dinner ready? Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for the thought of God? Are these happy homes? Where there is the beating of drums, the noise and clatter of pipe and lute, the clanging of cymbals, can any fear of God be found? The parasite is snubbed and feels proud of the honour. Enter next the half-naked victims of the passions, a mark for every lustful eye. The unhappy wife must either take pleasure in them, and perish, or be displeased, and provoke her husband. Hence arises discord, the seed-plot of divorce. Or suppose you find me a house where these things are unknown, which is a rara avis indeed! Yet even there the very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God. Genesis 18:11 It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women: so the Scripture says, and afterwards Abraham received the command, Genesis 21:12 In all that Sarah says unto you, hearken unto her voice. She who is not subject to the anxiety and pain of child-bearing and having passed the change of life has ceased to perform the functions of a woman, is freed from the curse of God: nor is her desire to her husband, but on the contrary her husband becomes subject to her, and the voice of the Lord commands him, In all that Sarah says unto you, hearken unto her voice. Thus they begin to have time for prayer. For so long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected.
I do not deny that holy women are found both among widows and those who have husbands; but they are such as have ceased to be wives, or such as, even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity. The Apostle, Christ speaking in him, briefly bore witness to this when he said, 1 Corinthians 7:34 She that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. He leaves us the free exercise of our reason in the matter. He lays no necessity upon anyone nor leads anyone into a snare: he only persuades to that which is proper when he wishes all men to be as himself. He had not, it is true, a commandment from the Lord respecting virginity, for that grace surpasses the unassisted power of man, and it would have worn an air of immodesty to force men to fly in the face of nature, and to say in other words, I want you to be what the angels are. It is this angelic purity which secures to virginity its highest reward, and the Apostle might have seemed to despise a course of life which involves no guilt. Nevertheless in the immediate context he adds, 1 Corinthians 7:25 But I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. What is meant by present distress? Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! The reason why the wood grows up is that it may be cut down. The field is sown that it may be reaped. The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil. Every day we are being cut down by war, snatched away by disease, swallowed up by shipwreck, although we go to law with one another about the fences of our property. It is only one addition to the general rule which is made by those who follow the Lamb, and who have not defiled their garments, for they have continued in their virgin state. Notice the meaning of defiling. I shall not venture to explain it, for fear Helvidius may be abusive. I agree with you, when you say, that some virgins are nothing but tavern women; I say still more, that even adulteresses may be found among them, and, you will no doubt be still more surprised to hear, that some of the clergy are inn-keepers and some monks unchaste. Who does not at once understand that a tavern woman cannot be a virgin, nor an adulterer a monk, nor a clergy-man a tavern-keeper? Are we to blame virginity if its counterfeit is at fault? For my part, to pass over other persons and come to the virgin, I maintain that she who is engaged in huckstering, though for anything I know she may be a virgin in body, is no longer one in spirit.
I have become rhetorical, and have disported myself a little like a platform orator. You compelled me, Helvidius; for, brightly as the Gospel shines at the present day, you will have it that equal glory attaches to virginity and to the marriage state. And because I think that, finding the truth too strong for you, you will turn to disparaging my life and abusing my character (it is the way of weak women to talk tittle-tattle in corners when they have been put down by their masters), I shall anticipate you. I assure you that I shall regard your railing as a high distinction, since the same lips that assail me have disparaged Mary, and I, a servant of the Lord, am favoured with the same barking eloquence as His mother.

4. It is possible to not want children at all ever, and in general terms, that would be a sinful intent in marriage

Is it sinful in monasticism?
That was, and is, an accusation brought against monasticism:failure to produce the next generation.. But that is part of the point of the monasticism, and there is more to it than that.

But there is more to marriage than just procreating too.

HOWEVER, if the health of man or wife precludes children without grave risk to all, then the Church will permit marriage even for those who cannot bear children, knowing in her wisdom that God provides in strange ways.

5. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, has none of these complexities of human interaction and relationship, provides for sex-on-demand, has NO ascetic value at all in the life of the couple, and allows for sexual intercourse that is patently, expressly and intently closed to life.

So you think that "ABC" makes marriage simple?

6. NFP does not allow for sexual intercourse that is patently closed off to the possibility of life.

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

[elijahmaria]

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Mary

[ialmisry]

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

As to the mystery of human relationships, it is clear that they remained a mystery to St. Jerome et alia. Not that that afflicts all celibates: Fr. Braga of the Romanian Orthodox Monastery demonstrates that he knows a great dear on the topic of human relationships.

As to knowing a great more about the Ortodox Catholic Church than the Vatican, I should hope so, though I attended the latter's schools. But since Orthodoxy cannot be contained in your contraceptive box, I don't know what you gleaned from my knowlege of Orthodoxy from this thread.

[Papist]

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

Bologna

[ialmisry]

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

Bologna

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason.

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods? I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.

[stanley123]

[
As I have noted in the past:  We are not ready to speak with one voice on moral issues in Europe or anywhere else....and I am talking about formal teaching, not the sinfulness of members...eh?

Your dismal outlook is depressing.  Despite differences over issues such as contraception and divorce, there is much more around which we can unite and speak of to Western Europe.

You speak about "formal teaching" and "not the sinfulness of members"?  When 90% of the members are engaging in the sinfulness, what it is that you imagine the Muslims and the non-believers take notice of?  The reality of how Christianity is lived by its faithful, something the non-believers see and experience almost every day?  Or the unheeded publications from the Vatican?  Please, let's touch reality for a moment!  I often think that the reality of Orthodoxy's teaching on contraception is appreciated by outsiders.  Our teaching and the lives of our faithful coincide.  Whereas the Catholic teaching does not coincide and the reality is seen as amounting to great hypocrisy.

I have a realistic outlook on our "shared" moral teachings.  They are not shared...at the moment.  Some may share them but many do not.

I say an occasional rosary with a group of Muslim women in the area.  They are an interesting mix of beliefs and attitudes.  Some of them will go with me to the monthly NFP meetings that are held in the area.  There are several sets of couples per parish who have started cells of couples who are using NFP to either space children or to assist them to conceive.  They are also pretty traditional in the rest of their Catholic practice as well.  There's a very positive response from the Muslim women.

I think you need to get out more and meet more faithful Catholics.  Perhaps you don't meet many because you simply don't have time and don't really believe they exist.

At any rate, one cannot separate moral teaching from doctrinal teaching either so if you think we are heretics then I expect that you'd be honest enough to realize we have no grace in our sacraments, we have no real spiritual lives as a corollary...and so we really have no moral grounds to stand on either.

Apparently you are content with nominalism.

I tend not to be.

Such throw-away remarks tend to inflate the ego but they do not correspond with reality.  Is Pope Benedict guilty of being "content with nominalism" when he is keen for our two Churches to work together in Western Europe? 

It was not intended as a toss-off at all.

In fact, some months ago you were a twitchit over the fact that Pope Benedict noted that he was pleased to see that second marriages in Orthodoxy were penitential unions and not fully sacramental. 

He's a smart fellow so I don't think he was playing games with that remark.  I think he was sending a very pointed message.[/size

I wasn't atwitchet (like the word though) because when we get down to it I don't care very much about the Pope of Rome spreading disinformation on Orthodoxy.   Either he is ignorant of the nature of Orthodox second marriages or he was being disingenuous and playing to his Catholic audience, perhaps attempting to gloss over the differences.

As for a "pointed message" the message received by the Orthodox was, as I have said, Benedict is ignorant of our matrimonial theology or he does know and, for purposes of his own, was being dishonest.   

BTW: Twitchet is feminine.  Twitchit is masculine.  One soft, the other sharp...heh!

The point is that some Orthodox are more in line with Rome's moral precepts and some are not.  So there is, at the moment, no way to devise a formal and shared teaching.

At one time I remember to getting pretty shrill over the fact that I noted that there are still times, and places where the crowns are withheld in second marriages in Orthodoxy, or some penance is imposed....all these things depending on pastoral determinations.  There are SOME Orthodox shepherds who will willingly admit that second marriages are penitential in nature, ascetic in character depending upon the behaviors of one or both of the couples.

But as long as there is no clear statement or willingness to make a clear statement that second marriages are not the same as first marriages, then there's no grounds for presenting a unified face to the world.

Was it in Cyprus this year that the Church said that they will not recognize civil divorce?  That the couple must also take their case through a Church tribunal of some sort?

It is that sort of thing that will make it much more clear that divorce should never be the norm, nor taken for granted.

There's a wonderful ecumenical group of pastors here where I am who have organized themselves and dedicated a portion of their time in ministry to saving marriages that are on the rocks...very proactive.  I am deeply impressed by them and their blessed project.  That is also the sort of thing one would expect to see and hear coming from some agreed statement about the sanctity of marriage.

Over the years I've worked with about 20 couples on the rocks who are still struggling, still married in the face of some personal distresses that are severe but not threatening to life and limb, and they are together on principle and in faith, still love one another though there are times when they loathe the presence of the other.  And as they age, and as they mature, some very good things are happening, in their lives personally and in the communities in which they live and worship on account of their faithfulness.

I NEVER hear you talk about those kinds of things.  All you do is mock the Catholic Church's practices of annulment, and talk about how happy you are to facilitate second marriages.  So what am I to conclude.  You can get pretty shrill now and then.

But you are right about one thing, when it comes to morality and its expression, and how we present to the world....Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church are often divided by a fairly deep chasm, at least in the terms in which you present things.

M.

But the US tribunals require that the Catholic couple obtain a civil divorce before applying for the marriage annulment. If Jesus was against divorce, why do the Catholic tribunals require it even before looking at the case?

[stanley123]

Look, this NFP vs. ABC issue is being made much more complicated than is necessary.
NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

NFP does not violate this principle, because it is the nature of sex not to produce children during the non-fertile periods.

ABC is a violation of this natural law principal, because it purposely frustrates the nature of sex during fertile periods.

On the other hand, NFP does not frustrate the prupose of sex.
There is nothing contrary to natural law about abstaining from sex for certain periods. But when one does engage in sex, one must not purposely frustrate its prupose: procreation during the fertile periods.

Do you think that a surgical bypass to reduce one's weight would be a violation of the natural law ? A person has this operation so that he can enjoy eating but still lose weight, while the food goes down the tube and is discarded? Would this amount to a frustation of the nature and primary purpose of eating?

[elijahmaria]

This is about the extent of the depth that we are going to get out of this discussion and I don't doubt that opening a new thread on the topic of the mystery of Christian sexuality will only degenerate as this topic has and perhaps even more quickly. 

I will leave this thread with a book recommendation for those so inclined:

Purity. The Mystery of Christian Sexuality:  by Deitrich vonHildebrand

Originally published under the title: In Defense of Purity
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions.  If this is indicative of the depth of Orthodox thinking on such matters, I doubt that we'll be doing much at all in tandem.

On a personal note, my son argues the wisdom of Robert Anton Wilson against the deceit of the Catholic Church using many the same tactics as Isa uses to argue the wisdom of Orthodoxy against the deceit of the Catholic Church.  I don't spend much time in discussion with my son any longer, either.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions.

So why has Pope Benedict proposed it?  Can he not see as clearly as you do?   

[Iconodule]

Obviously, Pope Benedict needs to spend more time on internet discussion boards to find out what Orthodox are really like.

[ialmisry]

I hope this thread has been instructive to all Orthodox reading this Forum section, who actually think that there's any chance that there can be cooperation on moral and social issues between our confessions. 

Was someone specific seeking such cooperation?

If this is indicative of the depth of Orthodox thinking on such matters, I doubt that we'll be doing much at all in tandem.

Only if you reduce all the moral and social teaching  of the Vatican to making a distinction between you see as articial and natural contraception.  I thought it dealt with a broader array of issues.

I don't think we dealth with the Orthodox teaching on such matters at all, superficial or deep. Did I miss something?

On a personal note, my son argues the wisdom of Robert Anton Wilson against the deceit of the Catholic Church using many the same tactics as Isa uses to argue the wisdom of Orthodoxy against the deceit of the Catholic Church.  I don't spend much time in discussion with my son any longer, either.

Never heard of him.

[Papist]

Neither does coitus interruptus nor frottage. Would you put them in NFP, or ABC?

Best I can glean from your mess of mental frottage is that you know a great deal more about Orthodoxy than you do about the Catholic Church, and your running commentary demonstrates a knowledge that focuses a great deal more on the mechanics of sex than on the mystery of human relationships.

Hardly. Humanae Vitae is an argument on "mechanics." That is why this issue comes up at all.

Bologna

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason.

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods? I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively. It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally. Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.

If you think that objecting to the pull out method is about nonthing more than mechanics, then you don't understad sex at all

[Paisius]

I have to say the level of blatant hypocrisy shown by Catholics and the Catholic Church on this subject is absolutely staggering. I had never read Humanae Vitae before but decided to read it after what Isa said about it. He is absolutely correct about the document; there is not one single reference to Tradition or to the Fathers.....not one, zero, zilch, nada. In fact as has been pointed out the patristic consensus seems to be that sex is for procreation and that doing anything to frustrate that is gravely sinful. Even recent popes have made statements that preclude anything that potentially frustrates conception.


Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.- Pope Pius XI


In order to get around the fact that there is no patristic support for NFP Pope Paul appeals not to Aposolic Tradition, but rather to some vague idea of "natural law." So to try and make the case that the Orthodox Church has abandoned Tradition while the Catholic Church has remained faithful is simply not true. The reality is both Churches have changed their attitude towards marital relations and we both allow couples to "frustrate conception" under certain circumstances. The only difference is the methods that we allow.




In Christ
Joe

[theistgal]

So you're saying both Churches have abandoned Tradition, in this area at least?

[Paisius]

So you're saying both Churches have abandoned Tradition, in this area at least?

It certainly appears both Churches have a more nuanced view on the subject. Both Churches have taken a more sympathetic view of allowing couples to take steps to space out children while still appreciating the unitive aspect of marital relations.

[ialmisry]

Neither does coitus interruptus.

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.

Every coitus ends in a withdrawal. That's the nature of things. How soon is too soon?

I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina.

Given the nature of things, not all makes it/stays there.

Then there is the question, given the nature of semen according to Aquinas, of the morality of not delievering it there according to natural law, i.e. forgoing marriage.

He has some interesting views on semen:

Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

In fact, if you read the bible

I do

Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

He's come up before:

This is alwasy interesting:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.

I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers

Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:

No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.

Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.

Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

than the EO position, which basically ignores them

No, we just don't proof text from the Fathers, on this or any other issue.  We stick with the overwhelming Fathers who exercised the discretion not to interject the opinions/attitudes of celibates (which can be very interesting, even to go into detail on what sexual positions are "moral" and why) into the intimate relations of the married, and held fast to the Apostolic Tradition that marriage is honorable and the marital bed undefiled.  This consensus of discretion is embodied in the marriage rite, and the moral theology.

and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.

She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.

How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?

Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.

I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

I can assure you it is not.

It closes one off from being "open to life."

1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").

Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.

2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?

Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.

1. Clarify and quote.

Done already, see above.

2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.

There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that.

The Spirit that animates St. Jerome is not the one in Humanae Vitae. You have to take your pic.

You are not.

With those who abhorred marriage. No, we are not.

How about "orally consumated sex"?

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.

The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

I'm aware of some views on the matter: the penitentials call for life long penance for oral sex, but only seven years for premeditated murder.

I can't recall if it was Abelard, Anselm or someone else who embraced celibacy because of his abhorrence of the idea that semen and urine passed through the same passage. I guess he wasn't impressed with the design.

Not advocating any preferences. Just stating that the idea that "orally consumated sex" is worse than murder is absurd.

It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally.

According to your "design" theory, it doesn't even get to that: it shouldn't be in the mouth or doing anything at all.

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.

The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:

Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.

I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.

So?

So where did you get it?

[Irish Hermit]

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.   There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.

[Papist]

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law. I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina. In fact, if you read the bible, Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

Onan's abrupt death seems awfully unfair to poor Onan.   There are millions of teenage boys walking the planet who have not been struck dead for onanism.

Hate to be the one that is the example.

[Papist]

Neither does coitus interruptus.

Actually, coitus interruptus does violate the natural law.

Every coitus ends in a withdrawal. That's the nature of things. How soon is too soon?

I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas argues quite effectively that the nature of semen is to be ejaculated into the Vagina.

Given the nature of things, not all makes it/stays there.

Then there is the question, given the nature of semen according to Aquinas, of the morality of not delievering it there according to natural law, i.e. forgoing marriage.

He has some interesting views on semen:

Now the soul is infected with the corruption of original sin by the carnal semen....Accordingly the original sin of all men was in Adam indeed, as in its principal cause, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned": whereas it is in the bodily semen, as in its instrumental cause, since it is by the active power of the semen that original sin together with human nature is transmitted to the child...Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin...The soul of any individual man was in Adam, in respect of his seminal power, not indeed as in its effective principle, but as in a dispositive principle: because the bodily semen, which is transmitted from Adam, does not of its own power produce the rational soul, but disposes the matter for it...The corruption of original sin is nowise caused by God, but by the sin alone of our first parent through carnal generation. And so, since creation implies a relation in the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is tainted through being created. On the other hand, infusion implies relation both to God infusing and to the flesh into which the soul is infused. And so, with regard to God infusing, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through being infused; but only with regard to the body into which it is infused

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2083.htm

In fact, if you read the bible

I do

Onus was killed for his act of coitus interruptus.

He's come up before:

This is alwasy interesting:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

This always ignores the mention of why Onan was spilling seed-if it is not important, why is it mentioned? The reference to Deut. is defense of a weak exegesis, if not eisogesis.  The humiiliation was for not marrying the woman.  That is not what Onan did.  He took her with no intention of giving her a son, but using her for sex.

I don't claim St. Jerome as the authority on sexual morality (God forbid!), but the apologists for Humanae Vitae claim him.  Honestly requires I cite those Fathers upon which they depend (as HV doesn't cite patristics. It can't).  Since I do not follow HV  (at least in particulars), those who follow HV  are bound to follow him, not I. I'm just citing the record.

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Do feel free, however, to cite any Church Father on Onan.

According to your patristics, it is an outrage against the nature of sex to indulge during the non-fertile periods.

I am not arguing from patristics at this point, just from reason. But if you want to talk Patristics, the Catholic position is MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers

Your problem is that your "patristic position" argues from "reason."

NFP vs. ABC is a matter of natural law.
According to natural law theory, all things must be treated in accord with their nature.
It is the nature of sex to produce children when two persons of the opposite sex engage in sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods. During the non-fertile periods, sex does not produce children.

During which periods women desire sex more, because they are at their fertile period.  You even can claim some patristics on that, aready quoted:

No, you make an articifical distinction between "artifical" and natural.

Our distinction between NFP and artificial contraception is hardly "artificial." Using the natural fertility cycle of a woman to space pregnancies is hardly the same as throwing some latex between a husband and wife or taking a pill.

Or withdrawing a....: he has to eventually.  And St. Clement, cited by those seeking to make this artificial distinction, calls what you call natural "against nature": "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor."

As for "MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with the spirit of the Fathers," well, if you hold intercourse (including marital, during fertile periods) unclean like St. Jerome, to be tolerated only for the unpleasant duty of begetting children (preferably to redeem their parents by choosing monasticism over marriage), well there is patristic basis for that.  But not for the scheme set up by Humanae Vitae.

than the EO position, which basically ignores them

No, we just don't proof text from the Fathers, on this or any other issue.  We stick with the overwhelming Fathers who exercised the discretion not to interject the opinions/attitudes of celibates (which can be very interesting, even to go into detail on what sexual positions are "moral" and why) into the intimate relations of the married, and held fast to the Apostolic Tradition that marriage is honorable and the marital bed undefiled.  This consensus of discretion is embodied in the marriage rite, and the moral theology.

and then pretends like the EO Church has never changed.

She hasn't. Ever since Christ blessed the marriage at Cana.

How about using "ABC" during the non-fertile periods?

What would be the purpose of using ABC during the non-fertile periods?

Combining contraceptive methods is not uncommon in the least.

I don't even see how this is an objection. If anything, I would call it a sophism on your part.

I can assure you it is not.

It closes one off from being "open to life."

1. NFP is open to life because it should not be used with a contraceptive mentalilty ("I am only going to have x number of kids and that is it").

Although its working does not depend on mentality, it depends on "contraceptive mentality" to be employed. And I'm not sure that your quote would violate Humanae Vitae as it is taught nowadays.

2. Did I even use the term "open to life" in my argument?

Don't know. Does it matter?: the phrase is part and parcel of the HV apologia.

According to St. Clement, during the non-fertile period.

1. Clarify and quote.

Done already, see above.

2. You think the Fathers were all around wrong about birth control, so you don't really have a leg to stand on here.

That I think certain celibate Fathers haven't a clue on married life, I can tell that by reading: what they theorized on I live/d. As to the underlining principles, we have St. John Chrysostom and others, including in many details St. Augustine.

At least our position is much closer to the spirit of the Fathers.

There are Fathers who held marriage in abhorrence, and those who held it in honor. Which one are you claiming, as the HV apologia depends on the former.

Perhaps some of them were wrong on some of the particulars of the matter, but the spirit of what they taught, and their consensus is correct. We are in line with that.

The Spirit that animates St. Jerome is not the one in Humanae Vitae. You have to take your pic.

You are not.

With those who abhorred marriage. No, we are not.

How about "orally consumated sex"?

The penis is obviously not evolved/designed for the mouth, but matches the female anatomy quite impressively.

The mouth isn't evolved/desinged for speaking. And yet it does.

I'm aware of some views on the matter: the penitentials call for life long penance for oral sex, but only seven years for premeditated murder.

I can't recall if it was Abelard, Anselm or someone else who embraced celibacy because of his abhorrence of the idea that semen and urine passed through the same passage. I guess he wasn't impressed with the design.

Not advocating any preferences. Just stating that the idea that "orally consumated sex" is worse than murder is absurd.

It would be contrary to the natural law to "consumate" orally.

According to your "design" theory, it doesn't even get to that: it shouldn't be in the mouth or doing anything at all.

That's why I'm intrigued on how this has been inserted into the HV apologia, eg.

The fact of this change, introducing a distinction between ABC and NFP leads to some interesting eisogesis: from the same EWTN site:

Letter of Barnabas

"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness"' (<Letter of Barnabas> 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

There is no hint of "consumated" (i.e. ejaculation) at all in the passage. "Barnabas" abhors oral sex (amongst other things). Period.  It is being read into the text here to serve the new (for the Vatican) teaching on the matter.

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some good arguments about where semen is supposed to end up.

I'll buy my bread from a baker. He couldn't even figure out conception as the beginning of life, something not only known by nature, but confirmed by revelation.

St. Jerome doesn't add that last part.

So?

So where did you get it?

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

[ICXCNIKA]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.
[/quote]

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

[elijahmaria]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.
[/quote]

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.

[ialmisry]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.

[elijahmaria]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.

It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.

[ialmisry]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.

It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.

Don't play poker, so can't really respond.  Except that the ace of spades is not the ace of hearts. even I know that, and can't be told otherwise.

[ICXCNIKA]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

I am so glad you like what he's doing.  

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas."  

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

M.
[/quote]

Mary,

I would love to help you out. Unfortunately I can't because it would go against the Laws of Nature. 

[elijahmaria]

I will go through each of your absurd points when I get a chance this weekend. I am not putting you off, but giving myself a break because your sophmoric arguments are starting to wear on me and I don't want a moderated dot next to my name.

I for one do not find his points absurd nor his arguments sophomoric. It appears to me that he has easily defeated the weak arguments put forward by the Romans on this topic.

I am so glad you like what he's doing. 

Could you do the idiot Catholics a favor and go get us a quote that explains "the nature of semen according to Aquinas." 

This seems to be one of Isa's devastating points...but he supports it with nothing.

Maybe you can help us out...eh?

IIRC, Papist brought up Aquinas and his views on semen.  He didn't quote him, but I did (but just on the issue of the transmission of original sin). Maybe he can give you more info on that subject, as you distrust me.

It's not a matter of distrusting you.  Interacting with you is like dealing poker hands and having you grab all the cards and throw them up in the air and then blaming us because we won't take your bets.

In fact I trust you implicitly to do what you do each and every time, precisely the same way.

M.

Don't play poker, so can't really respond.  Except that the ace of spades is not the ace of hearts. even I know that, and can't be told otherwise.

You don't really know Catholic theology either and you surely don't understand what the Catholic Church teaches in most cases where I've seen your objections....but you don't seem to let that stop you.

M.

[ialmisry]

Given the apologists equating eunuchs with birth control, I thought this, from St. Justin Martyr's Apology, interesting:

Chapter 29. Continence of Christians
And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
It interesting that no disapproval is shown by the Christians: it is the pagan Felix who stops the Christian youth from obtaining castration.

[ialmisry]

Using New Advent (an excellent site, although not to be used without discernment, of course), I came across this tidbit that reminded of this thread:

Do you know why Catholics don’t care about same-sex marriage?
“Polls conducted between July 21 and Sept. 6 found that a plurality of Catholics -- 46 percent to 42 percent -- approved of allowing gays and lesbians to marry,” reports Catholic News Service. Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto provided a clue as to why so many Catholics aren’t opposed to same sex marriage in a column earlier this month. Excerpt (emphases mine):Another area where Catholics should do more reflection and cultivate new habits is in the sexual practice of marriage. One habit that has taken hold of many marriages is the use of artificial means of contraception. The prevalence of the practice in and outside of the Catholic community has made contraception the unquestioned default mode of marriage. As a consequence, sexuality and relationships are misunderstood and misused; and their true purpose is misplaced.
These comments are not just about the “pill” or other forms of contraceptives. This is more about the habit of using artificial means. The habit has shaped the hearts and minds of many, especially the young. Marriage is no longer understood as the covenant of love between a man and a woman that creates life, because procreation is no longer associated with sexual intercourse. In this new social situation, many shrug their shoulders and wonder why a sexual relationship between any two people who care for each other cannot be called a marriage.

http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/10/do-you-know-why-catholics-dont-care.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheCatholicKeyBlog+%28The+Catholic+Key+Blog%29

Since I recall being accused here of reducing marriage to just sex, particularly since I questioned any "virgin marriage," if a same sex couple had a "virgin marriage" would that be fine then?

I wonder what effect the annullment nonsense, particularly at the rate the corban is dispensed, has had on views marriage. And the scandals-not the acts themselves, bad enough, but the coverups-and they wonder why such things, written by a celibate of course, are not taken seriously.

The contraceptive mentality is a problem, but the artificial division between ABC and NFP (so called) doesn't identify it.

I remember reading "On Human Nature" in which he Wilson touches on an evolutionary argument for the usefulness of homosexuality, but then states he doesn't want to push it lest the science change and imperil homosexuals.  Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

[elijahmaria]

The contraceptive mentality is a problem, but the artificial division between ABC and NFP (so called) doesn't identify it.

There is a clear difference in thinking between those who make use of various methods of artificial contraception and those who exercise the continence necessary to space children according to the needs of the family.

Mary

[ialmisry]

I was reminded of this by this post

Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican.

[elijahmaria]

I was reminded of this by this post

Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican.

That's not the apologetic for that Apostolic document at all.   If that is all you've ever heard then you've been listening in the wrong key-hole.  I wouldn't think you'd be interested.

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

[Irish Hermit]

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

[elijahmaria]

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Yes.  The Catholic Church recognized the unitive aspect of conjugal love, as per St. John Chrysostom.  That is hardly an innovation.

I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.

[ialmisry]

I was reminded of this by this post

Does Orthodoxy allow contraception or not?
 
I'd be interested in reactions, especially from Orthodox believers, to the online article of the above title. At the very least, there appears to have been some backtracking in Orthodoxy on the topic. And as usual, there is the problem that nobody seems to speak for Orthodoxy as such.

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

Interesting how we get a papal bull, citing SS Peter and Paul and hellfire ex cathedra and all, in Unam Sanctam, and yet we are told it does not speak for the Vatican.

That's not the apologetic for that Apostolic document at all.   If that is all you've ever heard then you've been listening in the wrong key-hole.  I wouldn't think you'd be interested.

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

No doubt those same "Orthodox" who tell you we are in the same church.

[ialmisry]

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Yes.  The Catholic Church recognized the unitive aspect of conjugal love, as per St. John Chrysostom.  That is hardly an innovation.

No, it's not. But it is new to the Vatican, which is why he (or any father for that matter) is not cited in Humanae Vitae.

I expect I know more conservative Orthodox priests because I am told that Orthodoxy used to teach against all forms of artificial birth control.

Told by those same "more conservative Orthodox priests" who tell you we are in the same church?

The ABC/NFP division is a recent innovation, one introduced by the Vatican in the 19th century.  The division abortifacient/non-abortifacient of old was determinative.  Most, however, left the details to pastoral counseling rather than dogmatic polemics, which, SUPRISE! is the same Orthodox attittude of the Catholic Church today.

[ialmisry]

Besides, there are many Orthodox who confirm for us that the use of artificial contraception is an innovation.

Anybody familiar with the modern Roman Catholic teaching on birth control knows that it is an innovation.

It contradicts the patristic declaration that no sexual act is permitted between spouses unless

1.  there is the intention to conceive
2.  there is the physical possibility to conceive.

As for what is called Natural Family Planning, such things are condemned as late as 1930 by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii as a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

6. Yet although matrimony is of its very nature of divine institution, the human will, too, enters into it and performs a most noble part. For each individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union of a particular man and woman, arises only from the free consent of each of the spouses; and this free act of the will, by which each party hands over and accepts those rights proper to the state of marriage,[4] is so necessary to constitute true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power.[5] This freedom, however, regards only the question whether the contracting parties really wish to enter upon matrimony or to marry this particular person; but the nature of matrimony is entirely independent of the free will of man, so that if one has once contracted matrimony he is thereby subject to its divinely made laws and its essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, writing on conjugal honor and on the offspring which is the fruit of marriage, says: "These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage."[6

Of course, unless the corban factory a/k/a the Marriage Tribunal, says otherwise.

This is interesting

14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.

[elijahmaria]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

M.

[SolEX01]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

[elijahmaria]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

Copernicus did a better job of revealing natural law long before Galileo and the Church did not censure him.  So there must be something you are leaving out of this old story: something that most dissenting Catholics leave out as well.

Nothing like good old historical revision to fill the poison ink well with the bitters of half truth.

[ialmisry]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

This is one of my favorite exaples of this:

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], 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. . . . Indeed, 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 [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. 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" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=1703.30;wap2
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/contraception.htm
etc. Many drink from that same quote trough, and they all have the same generous use of the square brackets to try to hide the innovation of the Roman Penitentiary in 1853 on allowing the rhythm method, NFP so called.

St. John says

Let us then shake off this evil sleep, for if the day find us sleeping, a deathless death will succeed, and before that day we shall be open to the attacks of all the enemies that are of this world, both men and devils: and if they be minded to undo us, there is nobody to hinder them. For if there were many watching, then the danger would not be so great; since however, one perhaps there is, or two, who have lighted a candle, and would be as it were watching in the depth of night, while men were sleeping; therefore now we have need of much sleeplessness, much guardedness, to prevent our falling into the most irremediable evils. Does it not now seem to be broad daylight? Do we not think that all men are awake and sober? Yet still (and perhaps you will smile at what I say, still say it I will) we seem all of us like men sleeping and snoring in the depth of night. And if indeed an incorporeal being could be seen, I would show you how most men are snoring, and the devil breaking through walls, and butchering us as we lie, and stealing away the goods within, doing everything fearlessly, as if in profound darkness. Or rather, even if it be impossible to see this with our eyes, let us sketch it out in words, and consider how many have been weighed down by evil desires, how many held down by the sore evil of wantonness, and have quenched the light of the Spirit. Hence it comes that they see one thing instead of another, hear one thing instead of another, and take no notice of any of the things here told them. Or if I am mistaken in saying so, and you are awake, tell me what has been doing here this day, if you have not been hearing this as a dream. I am indeed aware that some can tell me (and I do not mean this of all); but do thou who comest under what has been said, who hast come here to no purpose, tell me what Prophet, what Apostle has been discoursing to us today? And on what subjects? And you would not have it in your power to tell me. For you have been talking a great deal here, just as in a dream, without hearing the realities. And this I would have said to the women too, as there is a great deal of sleeping among them. And would it were sleep! For he that is asleep says nothing either good or bad. But he that is awake as you are puts forth many a word even for mischief on his own head, telling his interest, casting up his creditor accounts, calling to memory some barefaced bargaining, planting the thorns thick in his own soul, and not letting the seed make even ever so little advance. But rouse yourself, and pull these thorns up by the roots, and shake the drunkenness off: for this is the cause of the sleep. But by drunkenness I mean, not that from wine only, but from worldly thoughts, and with them that from wine also. (See p. 443.) And this advice I am giving not to the rich only, but the poor too, and chiefly those that club together for social parties. For this is not really indulgence or relaxation, but punishment and vengeance. For indulgence lies not in speaking filthy things, but in talking solemnly, in being filled, not being ready to burst. But if you think this is pleasure, show me the pleasure by the evening! You can not! And hitherto I say nothing of the mischiefs it leads to, but at present have only been speaking to you of the pleasure that withers away so quickly. For the party is no sooner broken up, than all that went for mirth is flown away. But when I come to mention the spewing, and the headaches, and the numberless disorders, and the soul's captivity, what have you to say to all this? Have we any business, because we are poor, to behave ourselves unseemly too? And in saying this I do not forbid your meeting together, or taking your suppers at a common table, but to prevent your behaving unseemly, and as wishing indulgence to be really indulgence, and not a punishment, nor a vengeance, or drunkenness and revelling. Let the Gentiles (ἑ λληνες) see that Christians know best how to indulge, and to indulge in an orderly way. For it says, Rejoice in the Lord with trembling. Psalm 2:11 But how then can one rejoice? Why, by saying hymns, making prayers, introducing psalms in the place of those low songs. Thus will Christ also be at our table, and will fill the whole feast with blessing, when you pray, when you sing spiritual songs, when you invite the poor to partake of what is set before you, when you set much orderliness and temperance over the feast. So you will make the party a Church, by hymning, in the room of ill-timed shouts and cheers, the Master of all things. And tell me not, that another custom has come to prevail, but correct what is thus amiss. For whether you eat, it says, or whether ye drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31 For from banquets of that sort you have evil desires, and impurities, and wives come to be in disrepute, and harlots in honor among you. Hence come the upsetting of families and evils unnumbered, and all things are turned upside down, and you have left the pure fountain, and run to the conduit of mire. For that an harlot's body is mire, I do not enquire of any one else but of your own self that wallowest in the mire, if you dost not feel ashamed of yourself, if you dost not think yourself unclean after the sin is over. Wherefore I beseech you flee fornication, and the mother of it, drunkenness. Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if you dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if you leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if you have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon your head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is yours. Hence too come idolatries, since many, with a view to become acceptable, devise incantations, and libations, and love-potions, and countless other plans. Yet still after such great unseemliness, after slaughters, after idolatries, the thing seems to many to belong to things indifferent, aye, and to many that have wives too. Whence the mingle (φορυτὸς) of mischief is the greater. For sorceries are applied not to the womb that is prostituted, but to the injured wife, and there are plottings without number, and invocations of devils, and necromancies, and daily wars, and truceless fightings, and home-cherished jealousies. Wherefore also Paul, after saying, not in chamberings and wantonness, proceeds, not in strife and envying, as knowing the wars that result therefrom; the upsetting of families, the wrongs done to legitimate children, the other ills unnumbered. That we may then escape from all these, let us put on Christ, and be with Him continually. For this is what putting Him on is; never being without Him, having Him evermore visible in us, through our sanctification, through our moderation. So we say of friends, such an one is wrapped up (ἐ νεδύσατο) in such another, meaning their great love, and keeping together incessantly. For he that is wrapped up in anything, seems to be that which he is wrapped in. Let then Christ be seen in every part of us. And how is He to be seen? If you do His deeds. And what did He do? The Son of Man, He says, has not where to lay His head. Luke 9:58 This do thou also aim after. He needed the use of food, and He fared upon barley loaves. He had occasion to travel, and there were no horses or beast of burden anywhere, but He walked so far as even to be weary. He had need of sleep, and He lay asleep upon the pillow in the fore (πρύμνῃ, here πρώρας) part of the ship. Mark 4:38 There was occasion for sitting down to meat, and He bade them lie down upon the grass. And His garments were cheap; and often He stayed alone, with no train after Him. And what He did on the Cross, and what amidst the insults, and all, in a word, that He did, do thou learn by heart (καταμαθὼν) and imitate. And so will you have put on Christ, if you make no provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof. For the thing has no real pleasure, since these lusts gender again others more keen, and you will never find satisfaction, but wilt only make you one great torment. For as one who is in a continual thirst, even if he have ten thousand fountains hard by him, gets no good from this, as he is not able to extinguish the disorder, so is he that lives continually in lusts. But if you keep to what is necessary, you will never come to have this fear, but all those things will go away, as well drunkenness as wantonness. Eat then only so much as to break your hunger, have only so much upon you as to be sheltered, and do not curiously deck your flesh with clothing, lest you ruin it. For you will make it more delicate, and wilt do injury to its healthfulness, by unnerving it with so much softness. That you may have it then a meet vehicle for the soul, that the helmsman may be securely seated over the rudder, and the soldier handle his arms with ease, you must make all parts to be fitly framed together. For it is not the having much, but requiring little, that keeps us from being injured. For the one man is afraid even if he is not wronged: this other, even if he be wronged, is in better case than those that have not been wronged, and even for this very thing is in the better spirits. Let the object of our search be then, not how we can keep any one from using us spitefully, but how even if he wish to do it, he may be without the power. And this there is no other source whence to obtain, save by keeping to necessaries, and not coveting anything more. For in this way we shall be able to enjoy ourselves here, and shall attain to the good things to come, by the grace and love toward man, etc.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxvi.html

It's not a treastise on natural law, despite what the insertion of square brackets "argues."

I'll be posting a thread, Lord willing, about the Vatican's dependence on natural law as revelation fails to support its views.

[ialmisry]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

Copernicus did a better job of revealing natural law long before Galileo and the Church did not censure him.  So there must be something you are leaving out of this old story: something that most dissenting Catholics leave out as well.

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

Nothing like good old historical revision to fill the poison ink well with the bitters of half truth.

I'll take your word on that.

[elijahmaria]

I'll be posting a thread, Lord willing, about the Vatican's dependence on natural law as revelation fails to support its views.

Great!!  Then we can look forward to more disconnected cutting and pasting with the occasional insinuendo thrown in for good measure!!

Don't want to miss that!!

[elijahmaria]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

[Schultz]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

Actually, Galileo was imprisoned under house arrest not because of what he discovered but because of how he chose to trumpet it.  As noted, Copernicus discovered much the same thing and had the backing of the Church.  It's also worth noting that most, if not all, of Galileo's proofs could be used to argue the complete opposite.

Kind of like how on this board people are often censured for the rhetoric they employ instead of the substance of the points.

[SolEX01]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

Actually, Galileo was imprisoned under house arrest not because of what he discovered but because of how he chose to trumpet it.  As noted, Copernicus discovered much the same thing and had the backing of the Church.  It's also worth noting that most, if not all, of Galileo's proofs could be used to argue the complete opposite.

Kind of like how on this board people are often censured for the rhetoric they employ instead of the substance of the points.

I was going to make the distinction that Copernicus' work spanned the Reformation and Galileo was post-Reformation; however, thanks for clarifying how the Catholic Church handled Galileo.   

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Catholic Route to Birth Control