OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Pilgrim on May 12, 2009, 02:08:57 AM

Title: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 12, 2009, 02:08:57 AM
I have heard that the Orthodox church has changed the teaching on contraception.

realizing that this has probably been endlessly covered, I'd appreciate it if I could be directed to the appropriate thread, if there is one.

Thanks! ;D
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on May 12, 2009, 02:36:38 AM
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=1103

Enjoy the many threads.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 12, 2009, 07:51:37 PM
Thanks a ton!

I didn't know that the ROCOR took a harder line towards contraception. Does anyone have more info on this?

Also....last poster, what is the Roman Orthodox Church Outside Rome? There's one I've never heard of. Your link goes to ROCOR...
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: scamandrius on May 12, 2009, 08:01:03 PM
Pilgrim,

As I am sure you will read on the other threads that have been posted here, you will note that the issue of contraception has always been an issue between the married couple and their priest.  This is not a change in doctrine (doctrine does not change) but it does reflect that the family structure in society, whether Christian or not, has gone through many periods of flux and the Church responds to this on a case by case basis rather than apply a one-size-fits-all standard.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 12, 2009, 08:38:58 PM
Pilgrim, welcome to the forum!  I like you avatar.

Have you read The Way of a Pilgrim?  I just finished it last week and I loved it!  It's a fabulous narrative introduction to Hesychast prayer; the Holy Stillness.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on May 12, 2009, 09:03:16 PM
Also....last poster, what is the Roman Orthodox Church Outside Rome? There's one I've never heard of. Your link goes to ROCOR...

I mostly attend a ROCOR parish, and it follows the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory the Great (Western Rite).  So, just a play on the acronym since it is the Roman Liturgy.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 12, 2009, 09:11:54 PM
So, is it wrong for Orthodox men to get a vasectomy when they are done fathering children, or must it be up to God to decide when I am done procreating (which will be never)?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 13, 2009, 10:43:22 AM
So, is it wrong for Orthodox men to get a vasectomy when they are done fathering children, or must it be up to God to decide when I am done procreating (which will be never)?

I think vasectomy must be a common decision made by the husband and the wife, and blessed by their priest. The decision of the priest to bless it or not to bless it should be made strictly on a case-to-case basis, and the key thing to consider there would be, will vasectomy help theosis.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 13, 2009, 06:23:27 PM
I haven't read that one yet. I have ordered The Orthodox Church by Bp. Kallistos Ware, and it should arrive soon.

Back to topic, I'm still a bit confused. If contraception is a husband-wife-priest issue, does that mean that it is moral to use for certain reasons. The RCC teaches that, lke abortion, contraception is immoral for any reason.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 13, 2009, 07:53:03 PM
I haven't read that one yet. I have ordered The Orthodox Church by Bp. Kallistos Ware, and it should arrive soon.

Back to topic, I'm still a bit confused. If contraception is a husband-wife-priest issue, does that mean that it is moral to use for certain reasons. The RCC teaches that, lke abortion, contraception is immoral for any reason.
That is true, although many Catholics do not practice that these days. I know that in my mother's time it was taboo to use contraceptives. Maybe that's why she had ten kids?  :-\
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 13, 2009, 11:48:43 PM
You're definitly right about not many Catholics practicing it nowadays! >:(

But, as St. Augustine (or Blessed Augustine) said

"Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 13, 2009, 11:50:11 PM
Which, BTW, is the problem.

Is it right, wrong, or does it vary with the situation?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on May 14, 2009, 12:10:35 AM
Which, BTW, is the problem.

Is it right, wrong, or does it vary with the situation?

You will likely find a variety of opinions on this one.

Some are dead set against ANY form of contraception (even NFP), some say it is alright only to space out children, others allow it due to the unitive nature of sex, etc.  It is definitely an "Ask your Spiritual Father" question.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 14, 2009, 02:38:07 AM
You're definitly right about not many Catholics practicing it nowadays! >:(

But, as St. Augustine (or Blessed Augustine) said

"Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
I seem to agree with Catholic teaching on this issue. It has been very well defined in Humae Vitae.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Michał on May 14, 2009, 05:29:00 PM
This is an answer to this (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg320897.html#msg320897) post.

I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on contraception. In fact, in an earlier edition of one book, it was said that it was not OK, but in a later edition of the same book, it was approved, under certain circumstances.

One of the major aims of marriage is procreation. Children are gifts from God. We are to not to fear having more babies. We are to rejoyce of it. We should not be egoistic while planning our families. Life should be protected from the very moment of its conception. ===> These teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church have never changed and they never will change. Still, the opinions about how this teachings should affect our attitude towards contraception vary. There are generally three points of view among Orthodox:
Quote
    1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.
    2)There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.
    3)There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
Source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception#Synopsis

Some might say that allowing for any form of contraception is in disagreement with the Holy Fahters. But we have to remember that thay had a very different view about human physiology. They thought that every drop of sperm has an already created tiny human being inside so waisting it would be the same as abortion. With modern biological knowledge, we have to admit that it doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Quinault on May 14, 2009, 05:46:36 PM
You're definitly right about not many Catholics practicing it nowadays! >:(

But, as St. Augustine (or Blessed Augustine) said

"Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
I seem to agree with Catholic teaching on this issue. It has been very well defined in Humae Vitae.

You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 14, 2009, 05:53:21 PM
You're definitly right about not many Catholics practicing it nowadays! >:(

But, as St. Augustine (or Blessed Augustine) said

"Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
I seem to agree with Catholic teaching on this issue. It has been very well defined in Humae Vitae.

You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?
I am aware of that. My comment was directed to a fellow Catholic that is inquiring about Orthodoxy, just like me.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 14, 2009, 05:55:42 PM
You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?

How so?  I thought any statement on faith or morals was ex cathedra?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 14, 2009, 05:59:54 PM
You're definitly right about not many Catholics practicing it nowadays! >:(

But, as St. Augustine (or Blessed Augustine) said

"Right is right even if no one is doing it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
I seem to agree with Catholic teaching on this issue. It has been very well defined in Humae Vitae.

You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?
And as far as I know, It is NOT Ex Cathedra.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on May 14, 2009, 07:44:59 PM
You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?

How so?  I thought any statement on faith or morals was ex cathedra?

Defining doctrine on faith or morals.   

But no, Humanae Vitae is not viewed upon as an ex Cathedra statement.  Just look at the 'Winnipeg Statement' by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops that was published months after.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 14, 2009, 08:01:51 PM
The correct spelling is " Humanae Vitae" , my bad :police:
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: The young fogey on May 14, 2009, 08:42:44 PM
Which, BTW, is the problem.

Is it right, wrong, or does it vary with the situation?

You will likely find a variety of opinions on this one.

Some are dead set against ANY form of contraception (even NFP), some say it is alright only to space out children, others allow it due to the unitive nature of sex, etc.

Being against contraception is not peculiarly Roman Catholic (like believing the office of the Pope is of divine origin and the channel of the church's infallibility on faith and morals). It's not even peculiarly Catholic in general.

Before 1930 all Christians agreed it's wrong. ALL. Including Protestants from high-church Lutherans to hardshell Baptists to writhing Pentecostals. Including... the Orthodox.

Given the decentralised nature of the Orthodox communion - not only no Vatican but not even a Lambeth (being invited to which defines who is Anglican) - it's fair to say there is a range of opinion on it there now, from agreeing with Rome/the early church/the Orthodox before the 1950s or so to more or less where mainline Protestantism was on the subject 50 years ago (it's between the couple, the minister and God, and only for the married).

One bishop, even one patriarch, issuing an encyclical yea or nay on the subject would not define Orthodoxy like the Pope does for Rome.

Citing widespread dissent on this among RCs is a slippery slope used by pro-aborts and people who believe in same-sex marriage (which is where the mainline Protestant churches are now: almost anything goes in a 'loving relationship' of consenting adults, hetero or same-sex). I don't think an Orthodox wants to use that argument.

Nice to hear about Western Rite ROCOR but...

'The Divine Liturgy of St Gregory'? Why not call it what it is, in all its goodness: 'the Roman Mass'? Byzantinisations like that are like when a Greek Catholic (http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Who.htm#GC) takes down the iconostasis and has groups praying the Rosary in church. For the same misguided reason (proving one's loyalty to one's church by copying its majority rite and differentiating from the bigger church that uses your rite). It's just not on.

Besides the Orthodox already have a Liturgy of St Gregory (Dialogos, the Pope of Rome), that of the Presanctified Gifts.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 14, 2009, 11:53:03 PM
You do realize that the Orthodox church does not adhere to Humane Vitae right? And it's status as an Ex cathedra statement is very much up for debate right?

How so?  I thought any statement on faith or morals was ex cathedra?
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 15, 2009, 01:29:15 AM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 15, 2009, 01:44:20 AM
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

I have to differ.  It is known to all that Humanae Vitae contains not one patristic quote.  It is also known why - because Humanae Vitae is NOT consistent with patristic tradition and any patristic quote would have highlighted that rupture with tradition.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 09:24:34 AM
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

I have to differ.  It is known to all that Humanae Vitae contains not one patristic quote.  It is also known why - because Humanae Vitae is NOT consistent with patristic tradition and any patristic quote would have highlighted that rupture with tradition.
Just like the EO rupture with tradition on the matter.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 09:25:04 AM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Catholics are obliged to give religious assent to all Catholic teaching whether it is ex cathedra or not.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 15, 2009, 09:56:42 AM
Catholics are obliged to give religious assent to all Catholic teaching whether it is ex cathedra or not.

This is true.

LUMEN GENTIUM

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 15, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
This is true.

LUMEN GENTIUM

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

Okay... so, there's no accountability for what the Pope teaches, other than "the guidance of the Holy Spirit"?

If you're supposed to obey, ex cathedra or not, then they might as well all be ex cathedra, yeah?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 01:46:32 PM
This is true.

LUMEN GENTIUM

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25

Okay... so, there's no accountability for what the Pope teaches, other than "the guidance of the Holy Spirit"?

If you're supposed to obey, ex cathedra or not, then they might as well all be ex cathedra, yeah?
Well one is the specific gift of infallibility. The other I would think falls under the gift of the indefectability of the Church. Both come from the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 01:51:46 PM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Yes, if it is considered "infallible," then it is nothing more nor less than divine teaching that all Catholics are obliged to accept from the motive of love of God's commandments/teaching.  As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

However, it should be pointed out that there is a difference between "assent of faith" and "religious obedience." "Assent of Faith" has as its object divine doctrine, whereas "religious obedience" has as its object the Magisterium.

Re: Coptic Catholic parishes, Coptic Catholics are the few and the proud. ;D  There are only two parishes in the U.S.  The one on the West Coast is in Los Angeles, California.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 01:53:31 PM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Yes, if it is considered "infallible," then it is nothing more nor less than divine teaching that all Catholics are obliged to accept from the motive of love of God's commandments/teaching.  As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

However, it should be pointed out that there is a difference between "assent of faith" and "religious obedience." "Assent of Faith" has as its object divine doctrine, whereas "religious obedience" has as its object the Magisterium.

Re: Coptic Catholic parishes, Coptic Catholics are the few and the proud. ;D  There are only two parishes in the U.S.  The one on the West Coast is in Los Angeles, California.

Blessings
I think that this is pretty well stated.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

I have to differ.  It is known to all that Humanae Vitae contains not one patristic quote.  It is also known why - because Humanae Vitae is NOT consistent with patristic tradition and any patristic quote would have highlighted that rupture with tradition.
I suppose this would be a good segueway to discuss what patristic quotes can be provided to demonstrate that the teaching of Humanae Vitae somehow contradicts the Fathers.

Humbly,
Marduk
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on May 15, 2009, 01:56:32 PM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Yes, if it is considered "infallible," then it is nothing more nor less than divine teaching that all Catholics are obliged to accept from the motive of love of God's commandments/teaching.  As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

However, it should be pointed out that there is a difference between "assent of faith" and "religious obedience." "Assent of Faith" has as its object divine doctrine, whereas "religious obedience" has as its object the Magisterium.

And yet when we point this out, that you must believe whatever the pope says, we are told, "no, just ex cathedra statements."  What practical difference is there, if both must be held/assented to?

Quote

Re: Coptic Catholic parishes, Coptic Catholics are the few and the proud. ;D  There are only two parishes in the U.S.  The one on the West Coast is in Los Angeles, California.

Blessings

Pride cometh before a fall. :P
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
Quote
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

Blessings
if it is to be considered "infallible" then wouldn't you say that Catholics as a whole are obligated to accept it as such? Either it is or it isn't. By the way, where are all the Coptic Catholic churches at here on the west coast?  :) Mr. Markdukum
Yes, if it is considered "infallible," then it is nothing more nor less than divine teaching that all Catholics are obliged to accept from the motive of love of God's commandments/teaching.  As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

However, it should be pointed out that there is a difference between "assent of faith" and "religious obedience." "Assent of Faith" has as its object divine doctrine, whereas "religious obedience" has as its object the Magisterium.

And yet when we point this out, that you must believe whatever the pope says, we are told, "no, just ex cathedra statements."  What practical difference is there, if both must be held/assented to?

Quote

Re: Coptic Catholic parishes, Coptic Catholics are the few and the proud. ;D  There are only two parishes in the U.S.  The one on the West Coast is in Los Angeles, California.

Blessings

Pride cometh before a fall. :P
Not everything he says exactly. Just everything he teaches as Supreme Pontiff. If its a private sermon or his book "Jesus of Nazareth" that's one thing. But if its an encyclical, then that is him teaching as Pope of the Universal Church.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 15, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
 As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

It requires "submission of mind and will".
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 02:12:24 PM
 As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

It requires "submission of mind and will".
They are a different kind of assent though. Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God becaause these statements are about divine revelation. Other statements are not exactly the same thing.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 15, 2009, 02:23:30 PM
Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God...

Are you saying that the pope is synonymous to God!!!

Other statements are not exactly the same thing.

But it says that you must submit mind and will to the teachings that are not "infallible".  Please explain.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 02:30:36 PM
Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God...

Are you saying that the pope is synonymous to God!!!

Other statements are not exactly the same thing.

But it says that you must submit mind and will to the teachings that are not "infallible".  Please explain.

Mickey, you were Catholic. You already know all the answers to these question. Why are you playing ignorant?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 02:34:57 PM
 As brother Papist has pointed out, even non-infallible teaching requires religious obedience.

It requirea "submission of mind and will".
I'll give you an example that will perhaps help you understand.

Let's take the matter of confession.  In the Armenian Catholic Church, general confession is normal.  An Armenian Catholic is bound under religious obedience to adhere to the teaching of his/her hierarchs.  In the Latin Church, individual confession is the norm, and a Latin Catholic is bound under religious obedience to the teaching of his/her hierarchs.  So if a Latin Catholic attends DL at an Armenian Catholic Church, whereas an Armenian Catholic would have no religious obligation to confess privately to a priest, that Latin Catholic still has a religious obligation ("mind and will") to confess his sins privately and individually to a priest.

The divine teaching requiring an assent of faith would be that God has given to the Church the power to forgive sins.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 15, 2009, 02:35:17 PM
Mickey, you were Catholic.

I am Catholic right now.


You already know all the answers to these question.

When I was in communion with the church of Rome, I thought that I had the answers.  But I have since learned that the parameters are always mutating.  ;D

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 15, 2009, 02:37:36 PM
I'll give you an example that will perhaps help you understand.

YOUR example is meaningless.  Lumen Gentium speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 02:38:16 PM

I am Catholic right now.
Nope.

When I was in communion with the church of Rome, I thought that I had the answers.  But I have since learned that the parameters are always mutating.  ;D
Nope.

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 02:39:35 PM
Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God...

Are you saying that the pope is synonymous to God!!!
No, but infallible teaching, whether from Sacred Tradition, the Pope ex cathedra, from an Ecumenical Council, or from the bishops of the world united in one voice yet dispersed throughout the world, are to be accepted as if the teaching came directly from God himself.  I guess the EO don't claim that?  Strange.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 15, 2009, 02:40:20 PM
Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God...

Are you saying that the pope is synonymous to God!!!
No, but infallible teaching, whether from Sacred Tradition, the Pope ex cathedra, from an Ecumenical Council, or from the bishops of the world united in one voice yet dispersed throughout the world, are to be accepted as if the teaching came directly from God himself.  I guess the EO don't claim that?  Strange.

Blessings
Yeah, I thought that EOs viewed the teachings of Ecumenical Councils as teachings from God too. Very strange indeed.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 02:40:59 PM
But I have since learned that the parameters are always mutating.  ;D
More likely, you did not know enough about the Catholic Church before you left.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 15, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
Ex Cathedra statements require an assent that is to God...

Are you saying that the pope is synonymous to God!!!
No, but infallible teaching, whether from Sacred Tradition, the Pope ex cathedra, from an Ecumenical Council, or from the bishops of the world united in one voice yet dispersed throughout the world, are to be accepted as if the teaching came directly from God himself.  I guess the EO don't claim that?  Strange.

Blessings
Yeah, I thought that EOs viewed the teachings of Ecumenical Councils as teachings from God.
It seems brother Mickey is a bit confused.  Or maybe he is just being polemical. ???

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 15, 2009, 03:52:58 PM
Yeah, I thought that EOs viewed the teachings of Ecumenical Councils as teachings from God too. Very strange indeed.

Yeah, methinks Mickey might be polemicist maximus.  If you don't want to be part of the RCC, fine, but you don't have to go around picking fights.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 15, 2009, 06:34:21 PM
Which, BTW, is the problem.

Is it right, wrong, or does it vary with the situation?

You will likely find a variety of opinions on this one.

Some are dead set against ANY form of contraception (even NFP), some say it is alright only to space out children, others allow it due to the unitive nature of sex, etc.

Being against contraception is not peculiarly Roman Catholic (like believing the office of the Pope is of divine origin and the channel of the church's infallibility on faith and morals). It's not even peculiarly Catholic in general.

Before 1930 all Christians agreed it's wrong. ALL. Including Protestants from high-church Lutherans to hardshell Baptists to writhing Pentecostals. Including... the Orthodox.

Given the decentralised nature of the Orthodox communion - not only no Vatican but not even a Lambeth (being invited to which defines who is Anglican) - it's fair to say there is a range of opinion on it there now, from agreeing with Rome/the early church/the Orthodox before the 1950s or so to more or less where mainline Protestantism was on the subject 50 years ago (it's between the couple, the minister and God, and only for the married).

One bishop, even one patriarch, issuing an encyclical yea or nay on the subject would not define Orthodoxy like the Pope does for Rome.

Citing widespread dissent on this among RCs is a slippery slope used by pro-aborts and people who believe in same-sex marriage (which is where the mainline Protestant churches are now: almost anything goes in a 'loving relationship' of consenting adults, hetero or same-sex). I don't think an Orthodox wants to use that argument.

Nice to hear about Western Rite ROCOR but...

'The Divine Liturgy of St Gregory'? Why not call it what it is, in all its goodness: 'the Roman Mass'? Byzantinisations like that are like when a Greek Catholic (http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Who.htm#GC) takes down the iconostasis and has groups praying the Rosary in church. For the same misguided reason (proving one's loyalty to one's church by copying its majority rite and differentiating from the bigger church that uses your rite). It's just not on.

Besides the Orthodox already have a Liturgy of St Gregory (Dialogos, the Pope of Rome), that of the Presanctified Gifts.

So the Orthodox  DID at one time have a more unified position (I knew about the pre-1930's opinion, having found it out to great surprise as an anti-Catholic reading Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Home). Has there been any open debate among Clergy or the Laity on this subject recently? Perhaps in response to Humanae Vitae?

On the western rite, I think I would advocate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the rite of St. Pius V. In Latin, of course. I've also been interested in the move to restore the Liturgy by Traditional Anglicans...

If I became Orthodox, I would still hold to Western traditions (non-heretical ones), and resist Byzantinizations in the west as much as I did (and still do) Latinizations in the eastern Catholic rites.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 17, 2009, 02:45:43 AM
So here is my direct question:

Does the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill ("The Pill") in all or any of its various forms allow for conception to take place, but then prevent the fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall?  I am trying to understand why "the Pill" is such a hot-button issue on the ethical front.

Does "the Pill" cause "little abortions"?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Quinault on May 17, 2009, 04:04:16 AM
There are various types of birth control pills that prevent pregnancy in various way. The "mini pill" or progesterone only pill that is supposed to cease ovulation and thicken the cervical fluid so that it doesn't allow sperm to swim very well, but it must be taken daily at a very specific time and is far from completely effective. And the break-thru ovulation each month can be as high as 60% and it also causes the endometrium not to thicken so that the uterus is not conducive to a healthy pregnancy.

Then there are estrogen/progestin pills. Ideally these pills stop your body from ovulating altogether so that the egg is never released so you can't conceive. But this method isn't too reliable either because it can be nullified rather easily. Break thru ovulation can occur up to as much as 2 out of 10 cycles. Additionally pills cause the fallopian tubes not to "push" the egg thru to the uterus and cause the uterine lining to become hostile to any egg implanting. This is the most problematic aspect in that conception- or meeting of egg and sperm- occurs before implantation. And it also increases the chance of ectopic pregnancy.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 04:34:06 AM
So the Orthodox  DID at one time have a more unified position (I knew about the pre-1930's opinion, having found it out to great surprise as an anti-Catholic reading Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Home). Has there been any open debate among Clergy or the Laity on this subject recently? Perhaps in response to Humanae Vitae?

On the western rite, I think I would advocate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the rite of St. Pius V. In Latin, of course. I've also been interested in the move to restore the Liturgy by Traditional Anglicans...

If I became Orthodox, I would still hold to Western traditions (non-heretical ones), and resist Byzantinizations in the west as much as I did (and still do) Latinizations in the eastern Catholic rites.
I believe the EP praised Humanae Vitae when it was first promulgated.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 04:36:26 AM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

Blessings

There are various types of birth control pills that prevent pregnancy in various way. The "mini pill" or progesterone only pill that is supposed to cease ovulation and thicken the cervical fluid so that it doesn't allow sperm to swim very well, but it must be taken daily at a very specific time and is far from completely effective. And the break-thru ovulation each month can be as high as 60% and it also causes the endometrium not to thicken so that the uterus is not conducive to a healthy pregnancy.

Then there are estrogen/progestin pills. Ideally these pills stop your body from ovulating altogether so that the egg is never released so you can't conceive. But this method isn't too reliable either because it can be nullified rather easily. Break thru ovulation can occur up to as much as 2 out of 10 cycles. Additionally pills cause the fallopian tubes not to "push" the egg thru to the uterus and cause the uterine lining to become hostile to any egg implanting. This is the most problematic aspect in that conception- or meeting of egg and sperm- occurs before implantation. And it also increases the chance of ectopic pregnancy.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 17, 2009, 05:13:57 AM
I believe the EP praised Humanae Vitae when it was first promulgated.


Indeed he did.  Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras wrote to the Pope to assure him of his "total agreement" with the encyclical's contents:

"We assure you that we remain close to you, above all
in these recent days when you have taken the good step
of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total
agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue
your mission in the world."

~Patriarch Athenagoras' telegramme to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon ,1987.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 09:08:09 AM
So here is my direct question:

Does the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill ("The Pill") in all or any of its various forms allow for conception to take place, but then prevent the fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall?  I am trying to understand why "the Pill" is such a hot-button issue on the ethical front.

Does "the Pill" cause "little abortions"?

No.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 09:09:18 AM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

I fail to see how. Is shaving opposed to this law, too?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 17, 2009, 09:49:07 AM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

I fail to see how. Is shaving opposed to this law, too?

A good point.  Pierced ears?  Breast implants?  Fertility drugs?  Gastric-bypass surgery?  Chemotherapy drugs?

I find it hard to distinguish where the line between allowed reinforcement and the limit of "God's Natural Law" is sometimes.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on May 17, 2009, 10:10:12 AM
Does "the Pill" cause "little abortions"?
No.
Can you cite a reference for this?  I understood differently.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 10:31:22 AM
Does "the Pill" cause "little abortions"?
No.
Can you cite a reference for this?  I understood differently.

These pills, by design, prevent ovulation (http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone1.html). So, they do not, by design, destroy those ova (egg cells) that have already been fertilized. Instead, they prevent the egg cells from coming out from the "captivity" of the ovarian follicles. So, the pills prevent fertilization, rather than kill the results of fertilizations (zygotes, embryos, fetuses). Pretty much like condoms prevent fertilization by not admitting male sperm into the female genital tract.

Of course, occasionally - and contrary to the design by which the pills work - a woman who is taking these pills will have a fertilized egg destroyed. But that can happen without taking any pills just as well.

I think saying that a woman should not take contraceptive pills because they CAN cause "mini-abortion" is the same as to say that we should not vaccinate our children because vaccines CAN fail or CAN cause an adverse reaction. Of course they can, but that's not the reason we should not use them.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Quinault on May 17, 2009, 11:07:24 AM
Caffeine consumption can actually nullify the effects of hormonal birth control in some women. To me the worst type of birth control is an IUD/IUS though. This form simply makes an egg incapable of attaching to the uterine wall. You could literally have an egg fertilized each month and not even know it.

But why anyone would want to take hormonal birth control is beyond me. I took it briefly for a couple months before and after my wedding and the effects were awful. I gained a large amount of weight and the mood swings were completely insane.

Saying that- my husband and I use NFP and a barrier method together to expand the number of "safe" days to have intercourse. (otherwise you end up with nearly half your month as "unsafe" because of various factors) I don't have a problem with preventing the sperm from getting to the egg or the egg getting to the sperm. The problem with hormonal pills is that they ALSO prevent the egg from implanting if sperm indeed meets egg. Roughly 25% of pregnancies end in early miscarriages naturally- most women don't even know they were pregnant to begin with in these cases. But to intentionally do something that would cause an early miscarriage if indeed sperm and egg meet would- to my mind, at least double the aforementioned figure. It doesn't work like having a tubal ligation where the egg is prevented from even getting to the uterus or the sperm from the egg. And even with a tubal ligation the tubes can actually regenerate on occasion. That is why the newest form of tubal ligation "burns" the ends of the tubes. You can still ovulate and the tubes will "grab" the egg and move it on down the line to the uterus. But even a tubal ligation doesn't prevent an egg from implanting like hormonal birth control does.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 11:37:30 AM
Caffeine consumption can actually nullify the effects of hormonal birth control in some women. To me the worst type of birth control is an IUD/IUS though. This form simply makes an egg incapable of attaching to the uterine wall. You could literally have an egg fertilized each month and not even know it.

But why anyone would want to take hormonal birth control is beyond me. I took it briefly for a couple months before and after my wedding and the effects were awful. I gained a large amount of weight and the mood swings were completely insane.

I heard it from women, too. But I heard something totally opposite, too - i.e. that it's the best, the safest and the least traumatic method of birth control.

Saying that- my husband and I use NFP and a barrier method together to expand the number of "safe" days to have intercourse. (otherwise you end up with nearly half your month as "unsafe" because of various factors) I don't have a problem with preventing the sperm from getting to the egg or the egg getting to the sperm.

Same here. Right now, we do not use any contraceptive methods simply because my wife is past that... point when she can get pregnant. In the past, we used barrier and some other methods that prevent fertilization. Harshly condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, of course. For reasons that to me seem irrational and overall absurd. These reasons, I am afraid, are based simply on the old Gnostic fear of sex as evil "per se." 

The problem with hormonal pills is that they ALSO prevent the egg from implanting if sperm indeed meets egg. Roughly 25% of pregnancies end in early miscarriages naturally- most women don't even know they were pregnant to begin with in these cases. But to intentionally do something that would cause an early miscarriage if indeed sperm and egg meet would- to my mind, at least double the aforementioned figure. It doesn't work like having a tubal ligation where the egg is prevented from even getting to the uterus or the sperm from the egg. And even with a tubal ligation the tubes can actually regenerate on occasion. That is why the newest form of tubal ligation "burns" the ends of the tubes. You can still ovulate and the tubes will "grab" the egg and move it on down the line to the uterus. But even a tubal ligation doesn't prevent an egg from implanting like hormonal birth control does.

Well, like I said, it's not the "design" of the pill to do anything to a fertilized egg; so, yes, occasionally fertilized eggs can be harmed by the hormonal changes caused by the pill, but I am not at all sure that this happens, statistically, more often in women who take the pill than in women who do not.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 12:01:01 PM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

I fail to see how. Is shaving opposed to this law, too?

A good point.  Pierced ears?  Breast implants?  Fertility drugs?  Gastric-bypass surgery?  Chemotherapy drugs?

I find it hard to distinguish where the line between allowed reinforcement and the limit of "God's Natural Law" is sometimes.
I don't see how any of these violates or impedes God's Natural Order.  Shaving? ???  Pierced ears?  If one wanted to use them according to Pagan beliefs, and not for mere decoration, yes.  Breast implants? If used to promote unholy vanity and lack of respect for women, yes.  Fertility drugs? I think that is a good.  What violation can you think of?  Gastric-bypass surgery and chemo-therapy drugs? If it promotes health, how can it be in violation of God's Natural order?  

Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.  On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose. I guess one's understanding of the purpose of procreation will directly influence how one understands contraception.  What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach is the purpose of procreation?

Of course, the Catholic Church understands that people will fall into sin (i.e., among other things, violate God's Natural Law), and not always be aligned to God's will and order. That is why she was given the power to forgive sins by Christ.  The Catholic Church helps people in their sinfulness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  That's how the Catholic Church deals with the reality of sin.  She teaches her members the Laws of God.  These are universal and DIVINE laws, and not subject to individual interpretation, even by individual priests or bishops.  The Catholic Church also recognizes certain mitigating factors for these divine and universal laws.  These mitigating factors do not reduce the OBJECTIVE reality of sinfulness for violating these divine laws, but rather reduces or completely takes away the culpability of individuals.  These mitigating factors generally fall under the heading of invincible ignorance.  But, most importantly, if Catholics in their human weakness violate these Laws, then the Catholic Church teaches and demonstrates God's love and mercy through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 12:08:27 PM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

I fail to see how. Is shaving opposed to this law, too?

A good point.  Pierced ears?  Breast implants?  Fertility drugs?  Gastric-bypass surgery?  Chemotherapy drugs?

I find it hard to distinguish where the line between allowed reinforcement and the limit of "God's Natural Law" is sometimes.
How do these violate or impede God's Natural Order.  Shaving? ???  Pierced ears?  If one wanted to use them according to Pagan beliefs, and not for mere decoration, yes.  Breast implants? If used to promote unholy vanity and lack of respect for women, yes.  Fertility drugs? I think that is a good.  What violation can you think of?  Gastric-bypass surgery and chemo-therapy drugs? If it promotes health, how can it be in violation of God's Natural order?  

Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.  On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose. I guess one's understanding of the purpose of procreation will directly influence how one understands contraception.  What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach is the purpose of procreation?

Of course, the Catholic Church understands that people will fall into sin (i.e., among other things, violate God's Natural Law), and not always be aligned to God's will and order. That is why she was given the power to forgive sins by Christ.  The Catholic Church helps people in their sinfulness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  That's how the Catholic Church deals with the reality of sin.  She teaches her members the Laws of God.  These are universal and DIVINE laws, and not subject to individual interpretation, even by individual priests or bishops.  The Catholic Church also recognizes certain mitigating factors for these divine and universal laws.  These mitigating factors do not reduce the OBJECTIVE reality of sinfulness for violating these divine laws, but rather reduces or completely takes away the culpability of individuals.  These mitigating factors generally fall under the heading of invincible ignorance.  But, most importantly, if Catholics in their human weakness violate these Laws, then the Catholic Church teaches and demonstrates God's love and mercy through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Blessings
[/quote]
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 12:26:53 PM
Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?

On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose.

It seems like you are lumping together procreation and sexual intercourse of the married couple. Are these two the same thing?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 17, 2009, 12:43:16 PM
I don't see how any of these violates or impedes God's Natural Order.  Shaving? ???
 

Because humans grow hair on their face naturally.  If that's the default, then why interrupt what God put there?

Quote
Pierced ears?
 

Were you born with holes in your ears?

Quote
If one wanted to use them according to Pagan beliefs, and not for mere decoration, yes.


So, it's okay for you to alter your body for decoration, but not for other reasons?  Family planning, marital relationships, health of the woman?

Quote
Breast implants? If used to promote unholy vanity and lack of respect for women, yes.
 

Is there any other reason you can think of that breast implants would be used?  Wouldn't they fall in the mere decoration category you just mentioned?

Or, do we get to map people's bodies into zones that we can then define as "naughty bits" and "not naughty bits"?

Quote
Fertility drugs? I think that is a good.  What violation can you think of?
 

But, the Church is against in-vitro fertilization.  You'd think that if God needs that many soldiers to worship him, they'd be for any kind of fertilization, regardless of what medium is used.

Quote
Gastric-bypass surgery and chemo-therapy drugs? If it promotes health, how can it be in violation of God's Natural order?
 

Gastric-bypass is internally altering your body's natural digestive system to reduce your appetite and thus make you lose weight rapidly.  Your stomach was built a certain way for a reason, mysterious or practical... why does it get a free pass on alteration?

Chemotherapy combats your own body's mutated cells.  Is it okay to decide which part of your body to murder and which to live?  It's okay to kill cancer cells, but not okay to waste sperm?  You may view it as apples and oranges (sperm and cancer cells), but I'm simply trying to find the dividing line.
Quote
Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation.


Everything I just quoted is part of "God's Natural Law" (whatever that is).  Sounds like cherry-picking based upon my worthless opinion.
Quote
It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.  On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.

No... no, Marduk.  I don't.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with barrier and cycle disruptive contraception.

Quote
First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.

God needs no human to be fully Himself.  That makes no sense at all.  God was Very God before the Birth of Light.

Or, do you mean participating in the world?  If one human is so important that by its non-birth God's whole plan for salvation would completely unravel, I'd hardly think that it would pick his pocket or break his leg (so to speak).  If one child is that important, it'll happen if He wants it to. 

I find it strange that God is all-powerful, but one little sleeve of latex can "disrupt God's plan for salvation."

Quote
To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose. I guess one's understanding of the purpose of procreation will directly influence how one understands contraception.  What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach is the purpose of procreation?

Duty to one's family is important, according to Saint Paul.  Husbands should love their wives like Christ loves the Church.  The Church doesn't steal people to baptize them because "God needs people to worship Him."  Neither should a husband or a wife bring mouths in the world unless they think they can properly succor them, teach them accordingly, and prepare them for the day when they won't be with them anymore.  I'm frankly sick of hearing that husbands and wives that use contraceptives don't love each other as much as people who don't.  Ridiculous.

I'm not Orthodox, so I'll let them answer the last part.

Quote
Blessings

Peace.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 01:05:41 PM
I'm not Orthodox, so I'll let them answer the last part.

I am Orthodox and, as such, know that the Orthodox Church principally does not make general statements on matters of marital relationships like contraception. Again, contraception in marriage is NOT a doctrinal/dogmatic issue. It is a pastoral issue. I know that the Orthodox Church as a whole, as the Body of Christ, does NOT "bind" me to think this and that about condom, this and that about diaphragm, this and that about progestine, etc. etc. etc. And it is sad to me that I see some Orthodox people frantically looking for "the opinion of the Church" on such maters. It simply does not exist. 
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 02:04:59 PM
Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?
I can't think of any other purpose for which God created sperm except for procreation. So, yes, I believe that condoms, which has for its primary purpose (and even only purpose) the contravening of God's purpose for the male sperm is against God's Natural Law and Order, and therefore inherently evil. 

Quote
On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose.

It seems like you are lumping together procreation and sexual intercourse of the married couple. Are these two the same thing?
I distinguish the two (I'm just being faithful to Catholic teaching), and this is evident from the fact that a woman is naturally infertile at certain times. So sexual intercourse CAN be distinguished from procreation.  However, to obstruct procreation in any way is against God's Divine Order. That is why according to the Catholic teaching, even the use of NFP as contraception is sinful (which requires the healing balm of the Sacrament of Reconciliation).

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 02:08:18 PM
Dear Gabriel,

I am aware that athiests and others have a purely secular version of Natural Law.  That purely secular interpretation often violates the DIVINE origin and end of God's Natural Law.  I hope and pray people recognize this difference, and for those who want a better understanding, I suggest reading St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 17, 2009, 02:32:39 PM
Dear Gabriel,

I am aware that athiests and others have a purely secular version of Natural Law.  That purely secular interpretation often violates the DIVINE origin and end of God's Natural Law.  I hope and pray people recognize this difference, and for those who want a better understanding, I suggest reading St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil.

Blessings

The Church Fathers are not infallible and are cherry-picked to fit whatever one wants them to say.

If you're implying that atheists and other secular types are somehow deficient in regards to marriage then would you agree that no person other than a Christian should get married at all?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 02:33:44 PM
Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?
I can't think of any other purpose for which God created sperm except for procreation. So, yes, I believe that condoms, which has for its primary purpose (and even only purpose) the contravening of God's purpose for the male sperm is against God's Natural Law and Order, and therefore inherently evil. 

But is it God's plan or purpose that every single time the husband and the wife have sexual intercourse, they procreate? If it's not, then I do not see any wrong in preventing the sperm from fertilizing the eggs... Just because God made something, it does not necessarily mean that we have no right to kill it - after all, we "kill" millions of epidermis cells on our palms every time we use hand soap...

Quote
to obstruct procreation in any way is against God's Divine Order.

Yes, I know that it is, according to the teaching of your church, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. Doesn't the married couple have an ultimate say in when do they want to have children, and when do they NOT want to have children? If not - why?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 02:37:22 PM
Dear Gabriel,

I am aware that athiests and others have a purely secular version of Natural Law.  That purely secular interpretation often violates the DIVINE origin and end of God's Natural Law.  I hope and pray people recognize this difference, and for those who want a better understanding, I suggest reading St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil.

Blessings

The Church Fathers are not infallible and are cherry-picked to fit whatever one wants them to say.


Moreover, some of them had a blatanly Gnostic view on sex as something inherently sinful, regardless of marriage. St. John Chrysostomos, for example, plainly wrote in his homilies on Genesis that Adam and Eve certainly never had any bodily intercourse before the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. What, this sleazy, dirty, horrible thing, with these moans, etc.? Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Gabriel on May 17, 2009, 03:06:18 PM
Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P

Sure.  One with a healthy view of sex can.  I treat a woman's body like a holy place, even if it's not by strict definition.
Title: Re: Contraception
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 03:30:18 PM
Dear brother Heorhij,

Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?
I can't think of any other purpose for which God created sperm except for procreation. So, yes, I believe that condoms, which has for its primary purpose (and even only purpose) the contravening of God's purpose for the male sperm is against God's Natural Law and Order, and therefore inherently evil. 

But is it God's plan or purpose that every single time the husband and the wife have sexual intercourse, they procreate? If it's not, then I do not see any wrong in preventing the sperm from fertilizing the eggs... Just because God made something, it does not necessarily mean that we have no right to kill it - after all, we "kill" millions of epidermis cells on our palms every time we use hand soap...

to obstruct procreation in any way is against God's Divine Order.

Yes, I know that it is, according to the teaching of your church, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. Doesn't the married couple have an ultimate say in when do they want to have children, and when do they NOT want to have children? If not - why?
As stated, it is not God's plan that every single time the husband and the wife have sexual intercourse, they procreate.  As stated, this is evident in how God created the woman, who is infertile most days of the month.  Where we disagree is your conclusion.  You position is, "if it's not, then man and woman should have full freedom to determine when to have kids."  My position (the position of the Catholic Church) is that no man or woman, married or single, ESPECIALLY Christians, can presume to act as if God's laws are not part of their life, in ANY part of their life.  Though some Fathers have had differing views on sexual intercourse (some more extreme than others), it is at least evident that contraception has always been considered by ALL as an instrinsic evil.  What is unanimous from the Fathers must be regarded by us (as Apostolic Christians) as being a divine teaching from God himself, and this is something to which we as Christians must give heed in our sexual relations.  That's my response to why a married couple does NOT have the ultmiate say in matters of bearing children.  The ultimate decision rests with God, and we must give heed to the Church as the voice of God.  We must make our decision - ALL our decisions - based on God's laws, not create our own.

As far as your example of germs, my response to Gabriel earlier would be relevant.  There is a distinction between the secular version of the Natural Law and the God's divine Natural Law.  Killing germs to protect a human being does not contravene God's plan of salvation per the Natural Law.  However, killing sperm or ova, or even preventing their God-ordained purpose in view of God's plan of salvation, does.

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 03:41:56 PM
Dear Gabriel,

I am aware that athiests and others have a purely secular version of Natural Law.  That purely secular interpretation often violates the DIVINE origin and end of God's Natural Law.  I hope and pray people recognize this difference, and for those who want a better understanding, I suggest reading St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil.

The Church Fathers are not infallible and are cherry-picked to fit whatever one wants them to say.


Moreover, some of them had a blatanly Gnostic view on sex as something inherently sinful, regardless of marriage. St. John Chrysostomos, for example, plainly wrote in his homilies on Genesis that Adam and Eve certainly never had any bodily intercourse before the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. What, this sleazy, dirty, horrible thing, with these moans, etc.? Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P
Did St. John Chrysostom actually state that sex is dirty and sleazy and horrible?  My understanding is that the unitive purpose of sex reveals a longing for unity with the divine.  This is why St. Paul taught that marriage is reflective of the relationship between Christ and his Church. This is why the Grace of celibacy allows certain men and women not to have the need for sexual activity since the longing for unity is fulfilled with God Himself.  And that is why there is no "husband and wife" in heaven.  Our longing for unity will be perfectly fulfilled in God.  This is the unity that Adam and Eve had with God.  That is why St. Chrysostom taught that Adam and Eve did not have sex - not because he thought sex was intrinsically evil, but because this longing for unity was satisfied by God Himself.

Well, that's my understanding anyway.

This longing for unity, btw, is part of the Natural Law.  It was one of the things God instilled in Man's nature (together with free will, rational thought, death and corruption).

Blessings
Title: Re: Contraception
Post by: Gabriel on May 17, 2009, 03:49:28 PM
Though some Fathers have had differing views on sexual intercourse (some more extreme than others), it is at least evident that contraception has always been considered by ALL as an instrinsic evil.

I've seen people make this statement before, and if I remember correctly, they always post quotes that have to do with abortion and abortificiants, but not barrier methods or cycle disruption.

But, I'll take your word for it for now.
Title: Re: Contraception
Post by: Mardukm on May 17, 2009, 03:53:10 PM
Though some Fathers have had differing views on sexual intercourse (some more extreme than others), it is at least evident that contraception has always been considered by ALL as an instrinsic evil.

I've seen people make this statement before, and if I remember correctly, they always post quotes that have to do with abortion and abortificiants, but not barrier methods or cycle disruption.

But, I'll take your word for it for now.
This would be a good time to investigate those quotes.  Good idea.  I believe Father Ambrose way back when in CAF gave a link to a list of such quotes.  perhaps he can repost the link for our perusal.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 04:51:00 PM
Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P

Sure.  One with a healthy view of sex can.  I treat a woman's body like a holy place, even if it's not by strict definition.

The Fathers' view was not healthy, unfortunately. They were all monks and they did not even know the first thing about what sex is.
Title: Re: Contraception
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 05:01:10 PM
Killing germs to protect a human being does not contravene God's plan of salvation per the Natural Law.  However, killing sperm or ova, or even preventing their God-ordained purpose in view of God's plan of salvation, does.

I was not talking about germs - I was talking about healthy, viable epithelial cells of the human skin, which we all necessarily kill, in the most direct sense, when we use soap. The epidermis is only a fraction of a millimeter thick. The most superficial layers of it, the so-called stratum corneum and stratum lucidum, do not contain viable cells - only dead cells, But underneath, there are the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum, and the stratum germinativum. All these contain viable cells, and oh yes, milions of them die when you wash your hands. So what? Miriads of new epithelial cells will come to replace the dead ones, that's the design (the mitotic activity in the stratum germinativum is colossal).

Same thing, actually, with sperm. The terminally differentiated "spermatozoa" are the result of the process of meiosis, which goes on and on and on in the testis of a male, beginning from age ~5-6 till virtually death. Each milliliter of the seminal fluid, which accumulates in the ducts of the testicles, contains tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions, of the spermatozoa, which, by design, do not live long - their life span is something like 1.5 - 2 days, and later they senesce and are literally "eaten" by neighboring cells, called macrophages. If a man ejaculates and those several million sperm cells that are not delivered into the woman's reproductive tract end up in a condom and die - how is this different, strictly speaking, from killing (or letting die) these same number of millions of sperm cells by simply abstaining from sex? There is simply no rational, human explanation of this difference - instead, there is a flood of "holy"-sounding words about God's plan, etc. etc. etc.

Your Church does not write encyclicas about the holiness of the epithelial cells of your palms, and it does not call you to stick to God's plans about these cells by not using soap, right? So, how is using condoms any different?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on May 17, 2009, 05:02:55 PM
Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P

Sure.  One with a healthy view of sex can.  I treat a woman's body like a holy place, even if it's not by strict definition.

The Fathers' view was not healthy, unfortunately. They were all monks and they did not even know the first thing about what sex is.
All of them?  Respectfully, this seems a bit presumptuous and over-generalizing.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 05:04:17 PM
Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P

Sure.  One with a healthy view of sex can.  I treat a woman's body like a holy place, even if it's not by strict definition.

The Fathers' view was not healthy, unfortunately. They were all monks and they did not even know the first thing about what sex is.
All of them?  Respectfully, this seems a bit presumptuous and over-generalizing.

All that I read.  :-[
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 17, 2009, 06:19:16 PM
The Fathers' view was not healthy, unfortunately. They were all monks and they did not even know the first thing about what sex is.

It's good that now you can discount their positions on these matters wholesale.  Those fools, giving up everything for God.  What do they know?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 06:22:42 PM
Did St. John Chrysostom actually state that sex is dirty and sleazy and horrible?

Yes.

Here is the direct quote from the Russian translation I have studied (English is my learned language, while Ukrainian and Russian are my two equally "first," native languages):

 4. Адам же позна Еву жену свою (IV, 1). Замечай, когда это случилось. После преслушания, после изгнания из рая, - тогда начинается супружеское житие. До преслушания (первые люди) жили, как ангелы, и не было (речи о) сожитии. И как это могло быть, когда они свободны были от телесных потребностей? Таким образом вначале жизнь была девственная; когда же по безпечности (первых людей) явилось преслушание и вошел (в мир) грех, девство отлетело от них, так как они сделались недостойными столь великаго блага, а вместо того вступил в силу закон супружества. http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/ioannz4_1/Main.htm

(4. Adam has known his wife Eve, Genesis IV, 1. Please note how that happened. After the transgresion, after being banned from the Paradise - then, only then the marital intercourse begins. Before the transgression (the humans) lived like angels, and there could not be even a question about the sexual "hanky-panky." And think, how could that even be, if there was this state of freedom from the carnal lust? Therefore, the real original life was one of virginity; only when they became careless and transgressed, this original (or "true") state of virginity was taken away from them because they became unworthy of the most precious gift, and instead the law of carnal intecourse overcame them.)

Given that St. John in previous chapters of these homilies very passionately argues that the Garden of Eden is not an allegory but was right here on Earth, I conclude that he believes that the state of virginity for the real, literal, earthly humans is what God wanted to be and the "law of carnal intecourse" is the dirty, unwanted, devious thing that we have to just put up with...

My understanding is that the unitive purpose of sex reveals a longing for unity with the divine.

The purpose of us being men and women - according to St. John Chrysostomos - yes, perhaps; but the purpose of us, men and women, having genitals, sexual arousal, erection, lubrication, orgasm etc. etc. etc. - most definitely NO, for him and for other Fathers as well. That is filth, the consequence of transgression. That will not exist in the "eonos" to come...

This longing for unity, btw, is part of the Natural Law.

But of course!!! But wasn't that longing for unity fulfilled before Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden? They did not have children, right... and yet, how, based on what, do we conclude that having sex, in the most physical sense, was not part of God's plan for the perfect humankind?

It was one of the things God instilled in Man's nature (together with free will, rational thought, death and corruption).

No, death and corruption was not instilled - corruption is what we got for separating ourselves from Him. Sex, however - why should it be equalled with corruption and death? Is smelling some wonderful aroma also the result of the Fall? Or listening to Mozart? Why is sex so singled out??? (My hypothesis: simply fear... the ancient Gnostic fear of things that are pleasurable in this "eon...")
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 17, 2009, 06:27:33 PM
The Fathers' view was not healthy, unfortunately. They were all monks and they did not even know the first thing about what sex is.

It's good that now you can discount their positions on these matters wholesale.  Those fools, giving up everything for God.  What do they know?

Alveus, believe me, it's a struggle for me, too. Every morning and every evening, when I pray, I say, "by the prayers of the God-bearing Fathers, Lord, have mercy on us."

But in certain areas, really, what did they know? Did they know about meiosis? Did they know about cells?

Imagine the Fathers considering Newton's first law of motion, saying that an object will move without any "reason," in a straight line and without acceleration. What do you think they will say to that? As late as in the 1540's - 1620's, the main objection to the Copernican Heliocentric system was that the Earth does not have any "reason" to move...
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 17, 2009, 11:17:52 PM
But in certain areas, really, what did they know? Did they know about meiosis? Did they know about cells?

Well, I don't have a problem agreeing that many obviously know a great deal more about science than they ever did or could have.  So when it comes to the nature of sexual intercourse, we might be right to raise some eyebrows.  But my point is that they were holy men, and it is our job to keep their spirit alive as only Orthodoxy has!

I think that if you really believe that Adam and Eve were real people and they really stopped being perfect beings or whatever, then it's not a much bigger stretch to imagine that they did not have intercourse.  If you think they are mythological archetypes for all of humanity's condition, then the question of a period 'without intercourse' becomes moot.  Orthodoxy talks out of both sides of its mouth in regard to this.  "Material reality is sanctified; but don't have sex!"  It just depends on who you talk to and when you talk to them.  Are any beliefs about human sexuality outlined as dogmatic in the Orthodox church?  I would assume there should be some dealing with fornication at least...  Just curious to know.

Also, consider this my official public request that you select an avatar!  I have so much trouble telling people apart on here without visual aids; you people who have no avatars ruin my life.  The runners up are the ones who change them frequently!
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on May 17, 2009, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: Heorhij
I think saying that a woman should not take contraceptive pills because they CAN cause "mini-abortion" is the same as to say that we should not vaccinate our children because vaccines CAN fail or CAN cause an adverse reaction. Of course they can, but that's not the reason we should not use them.
I only partially agree.  There's nothing inherently wrong with baseball, either.  But we don't play it with infants lying inside the fence.  We take necessary precautions to ensure that they aren't injured or worse, without regard to whether the game was designed to harm them.  Your answer of "No" was to the question "Does 'the Pill' cause 'little abortions'?".  The correct answer is "Yes".  There is a subtle but significant difference between does it cause and was it designed to cause.

Quote from: Quinault
But why anyone would want to take hormonal birth control is beyond me.
Many women take them for the health benefits.  They substantially reduce the risk of certain cancers, for example.  I've seen estimates of reducing one's risk by as much as 80%.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 17, 2009, 11:49:21 PM
Your answer of "No" was to the question "Does 'the Pill' cause 'little abortions'?".  The correct answer is "Yes".

If this is the case, can you please refer me to a credible secular website or publication that can confirm this information?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on May 17, 2009, 11:54:59 PM
Your answer of "No" was to the question "Does 'the Pill' cause 'little abortions'?".  The correct answer is "Yes".
If this is the case, can you please refer me to a credible secular website or publication that can confirm this information?
Actually, I'll stand corrected to start.  "Yes" is inaccurate.  A more precise answer is "we aren't for sure".  Even Heorhij above agrees that it appears likely that oral contraceptives occasionally allow conception but prevent implantation.  I'll look for a credible source to cite.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on May 18, 2009, 12:10:48 AM
I'll look for a credible source to cite.

From the Archives of Family Medicine (http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/126.pdf), an AMA Journal:
Quote
The primary mechanism of oral contraceptives is to inhibit ovulation, but this mechanism is not always operative. When breakthrough ovulation occurs, then secondary mechanisms operate to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. These secondary mechanisms may occur either before or after fertilization. Postfertilization effects would be problematic for some patients, who may desire information about this possibility.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on May 18, 2009, 12:19:39 AM
So the medical answer is "probably"?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 18, 2009, 03:25:25 AM
Orthodoxy talks out of both sides of its mouth in regard to this.  "Material reality is sanctified; but don't have sex!"  It just depends on who you talk to and when you talk to them.  Are any beliefs about human sexuality outlined as dogmatic in the Orthodox church?  I would assume there should be some dealing with fornication at least...  Just curious to know.

Alveus,

[These are complicated questions. Please send me a PM if you wish to see an email with the primary sources and scholarly material that this comment will draw from.]

I must admit that I found reading this thread incredibly discouraging; I had often feared that sharing the conclusions of my personal theological and historical research might lead to scandal or confusion, but, as this thread has shown, the level of ambiguity and confusion that *already* exists on extremely relevant questions of sexual morality within our contemporary context is absolutely intolerable and harmful to those attempting to take their faith seriously within a dating or marriage relationship.

I will be as clear and concise as I possibly can. Previous Christian thought on sex was based on two premises, I will discuss each separately:

1) The primary purpose/justification of the release of seminal fluid is procreation.
2) Sex is morally illicit between (free) men and women without permission from those who own/have rule over the latter.

The first premise leads to the discouragement of masturbation and/or eroticism of any kind no matter how serious the relationship before marriage and of sexual acts unlikely to end in procreation after marriage has taken place. Patristic literature, pastoral policy and canon law throughout the centuries seemed to largely agree with this assumption, although emphasis on the latter has fluctuated over time.  Sex as lovemaking could not emerge as a dominant Christian concept until the scientific/philosophical model upon which dogma was applied was proven repudiated.  Christian moral reasoning on sex throughout the centuries involved a continuous dialogue with Christian dogmatic textual sources, Jewish thought, Stoicism, contemporary science, etc.

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife." Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).

"Again, vice is the wrong use of our conceptual images of things, which leads us to misuse the things themselves. In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her." (St. Maximus the Confessor)

Carefully examine at their reasoning. Why must sex always have its end *either* selfish pleasure or the explicit intent to procreate?  Because they "knew" semen had certain biochemical properties and effects upon the male psyche if continually released, sexual pleasure which results in the frequent release of it *must* have procreation as its primary or sole purpose. Contra this position,  we now know that each milliliter of seminal fluid contains several tens of millions of sperm cells that are constantly being recreated and "vainly ejaculated, damaged, and wasted" in all healthy men.  If they knew this, I suspect they would have arrived at moral conclusions similar to that of most Christians today, that is, in favor of responsible contraceptive use.  The Church has (relatively) quietly ceased its condemnation of birth control as an intrinsic evil because the empirical basis for doing so passed into non-existence. What of the second premise?:

2) Sex is morally illicit between (free) men and women without permission from those who own/have rule over the latter.

[Before I proceed with my discussion of sexual morality in general, I encourage everyone to examine for themselves the meaning of the relevant New Testament terms in their original language and historical context: http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm]

Prior to the theological and scientific separation of procreation from sex, another revolution in legal and moral thought had occurred a few centuries earlier: absolute legal and moral intolerance of the ownership of persons by persons.  However, central to traditional Jewish, Roman or Christian legal and moral reasoning on sex is this *not* being the case.  Why is consensual sexual intercourse between a free unbetrothed man and a free unbetrothed woman condemned in the Torah?  Because the female is the father's property; and without his permission the relationship must end with a payment of the father.  Why is it condemned in Roman law? Because the relevant master and/or male authority has not given his permission. Why is it condemned in ancient church canons? For the same reason.  I will substantiate these claims with textual support from Emperor Justinian laws and St. Basil's canons.  Notice the change in policy if the woman is free:

-----------------------------------------------------------

JUSTINIAN LAWS

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a partnership for life, involving divine as well as human law.


Marriage cannot take place unless everyone involved consents, that is, those who are being united and those in whose power they are.


When a man lives with a free woman, it is not considered concubinage but genuine matrimony, if she does not make money as a prostitute.

The right is granted to the father to kill a man who commits adultery with his daughter while she is under his control. Therefore no other relative can legally do this, nor can a son under paternal control, who is a father, do so with impunity.

Where the law says, "He may kill his daughter at once;" this must be understood to mean that having to-day killed the adulterer he can not reserve his daughter to be killed subsequently; for he should kill both of them with one blow and one attack, and be inflamed by the same resentment against both. But if, without any connivance on his part, his daughter should take to flight, while he is killing the adulterer, and she should be caught and put to death some hours afterwards by her father, who pursued her, he will be considered to have killed her immediately.


http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/RomanLaw/MarriageRomanLaw.htm

ST. BASIL'S CANONS

XXII: ...In the case of a girl who has been taken when not betrothed, she ought first to be removed, and restored to her own people, and handed over to the will of her own people whether parents, or brothers, or any one having authority over her. If they choose to give her up, the cohabitation may stand...

XXXVIII. Girls who follow against their fathers' will commit fornication; but if their fathers are reconciled to them, the act seems to admit of a remedy. They are not however immediately restored to communion, but are to be punished for three years.


XL. The woman who yields to a man against her master's will commits fornication; but if afterwards she accepts free marriage, she marries. The former case is fornication; the latter marriage. The covenants of persons who are not independent have no validity.


XLII. Marriages contracted without the permission of those in authority, are fornication. If neither father nor master be living the contracting parties are free from blame; just as if the authorities assent to the cohabitation, it assumes the fixity of marriage.
[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm]

-------------------------------------------------------------

Both Church and contemporary society legally and morally now reject the assumption that persons can own other persons and/or that procreation is the primary end of or inseparable from lawful sexual activity. The first happened a few centuries ago and the latter theological consensus emerged late last century (1970s-ish); which is like 30 minutes in Church time. Applying our theology to a more modern intellectual and legal context, I will address two among the most relevant questions. First, what is sex? Sex includes the whole range of acts that begins with intentional arousal and ends with failed or successful attempts at bringing one or both of the persons to a climax. Mutual masturbation/oral sex/etc. are all really sex in my opinion because (1) they begin with acts of intentional arousal that seek to end in orgasm and (2) effective manual/oral stimulation is often more physically pleasurable than/more emotionally intimate than/ and preferred over vaginal intercourse by a large percentage men and women.

Secondly, what is sex for? Theologically, this question has NEVER formally been raised and addressed within a context where nobody owns anyone, where long term serious, emotionally intimate relationships before marriage are accepted as normal by both Church and society, where the enjoyment of sexual pleasure has been physically and philosophically separated from procreation and where the loss of seminal fluid at regular intervals is accepted as a sign of biological health rather than a disease that needs to be cured. So the question is just 30-70 years old depending on one's starting point. I believe a theologically sound and intellectually defensible understanding of sex within this context would understand its role as expressing and reinforcing shared commitment and love through shared pleasure and mutual vulnerability.  Virtually everyone today (Christian and non-Christian) who condemns promiscuous/recreational sex seems to accept this viewpoint either explicitly or implicitly, from the most strict (no kissing before marriage) to the most lax (just use protection).  That is, they both understand sex as having the same purpose but disagree on the previously inconceivable non-dogmatic question of how much commitment should precede a given level of physical intimacy.  However, at that point we talking about respect and responsible risk management rather than good vs. evil. It's ideal for parents/authorities to offer advice to young people and for them to work it out themselves when they enter committed relationships.

To summarize, there is no theologically normative form, starting point or relationship of church/state to marriage, period; the same could be said for the question of what precisely legitimizes sexual relations. No Jew or Christian would at any time in history deny that our bodies belong to God and this entails is that they should not be misused; but what constitutes an instance of misuse remains unexplained by this mere fact. Given that previous Christian thought on this question had many moral, legal and scientific presuppositions that are no longer accepted by anyone, both explicitly and implicitly and that examination of the relevant texts in their original languages and historical contexts reveals significantly fewer easy answers than many would suspect, the means and ends that need to be respected and taken into consideration must be carefully reconsidered and not thoughtlessly parroted.  Speaking personally, I think marrying guys off to women because they are burning to have sex is a bad idea in our own time and within our current understanding of things. The desire for sexual release should never be the primary justification for marrying one person rather than another.  Sex should be an afterthought with respect to whom one marries because it is the non-physical aspects of persons that are most important and the non-physical aspects of relationships that make worthwhile or not.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: kaarina33 on May 18, 2009, 07:02:03 AM
So the medical answer is "probably"?

Verifiable (pregnancy has been verified by a pregnancy test) "spontaneous loss of pregnancy in in the entire female population (rates are higher or lower depending on age of mother, age of father, previous history of miscarriage, and number of pregnancies.  First pregnancies have a higher rate of spontaneous miscarriage.

* 1 in 4 women who gets pregnant will experience a miscarriage

* 15% of all pregnancies ends in a miscarriage

These are numbers that women have no control over....there may be a chromosome abnormality, hormonal imbalance, or the fertilized egg fails to implant or implants in a location that results in fetal death.

There are estimates that anywhere from 30-60 percent of all pregnancies result in spontaneous miscarriage, these statistics include loss so early and asymptomatic, that the moms don't even know they were pregnant. (don't gang up on me, I know it's controversial, it's probably not as high as 60 percent, but I know it's not ZERO, either).  These studies and stats are not from propaganda put out by pro-choice groups...this is just medical facts, and the way the human body works. Take it up with God.

My question is of all the articles I have read claiming the birth control pill is just causes abortions, there have been no studies sited, if there have been any studies, that the pill causes spontaneous abortions over and above these rates.  I know the way it's supposed to work is to inhibit ovulation....but if there is ovulation, the imbalance in hormone could result in loss of the fetus, though I have located studies that women who get pregnant while on the pill are NOT more likely to miscarry....so in is conceivable (no pun intended  ::)) that there are actually less pregnancy losses for women taking the pill...if it works properly and there is no egg released to be at risk for these "naturally" occurring miscarriages.

My point is, if you are against "artificial birth control", just come out and say it-if that is what the church teaches, that should be all that needs to be said


The culture wars/that spreading inaccurate information at the speed of light via the internet has escalated the pro-life rhetoric to absurdity and harmed their own cause and credibility;--and unless you can back it up with studies, statistics, or even a theory to back up claims... (and, btw,conducted by parties without an agenda) please, or please don't insult women's intelligence with junk science, or please don't try to manipulate/or threaten them with accusations that there is no difference between a woman using taking the pill,  and a woman who deliberately walks into an abortion clinic and kills her baby. (yes I was told that over at CAF, when I mentioned I used the pill while on longterm medication for lupus (a chronic.lifelong condition). The medicine, methotrexate is used to induce abortions in ectopic pregnancy and but will cause most pregnancies to end in miscarriage; and if a pregnancy does go to term, the rate of severe birth defects is as high as 70+ percent....but on the bright side; several people spoke very highly of what a blessing a "special needs"child
can be, and can actually strengthen a marriage....I checked the calendar, it was not April 1st, and needless to say, go to CAF anymore....ironically I was over there to improve my marriage because my husband is Roman Catholic and I am always trying to find common ground and understand his faith. I gave that up too....our destiny is not common ground, it's learning humility, love, forgiveness and  developing the superhuman ability to control the tongue.

The thing on the BCP was an excuse to post and get around to asking for prayers, but also a wee bit of  a preemptive strike to avoid some of the most useless, rude, and hurtful waste of time space and energy that have made the art of civil conversation and respect rare birds on too many threads;
I would like to have an conversation that qualifies as I-Thou and not I-it interchange.
In other I would like to be an equal partner, (a brother. sister in Christ) in a conversation, not somebody's project, or "yes" man...if you want to know if something  your church believes, or some worship practice or devotion has the Orthodox stamp of approval...I DON'T KNOW...IN FACT THERE IS SO MUCH I DON'T KNOW, REAL LIFE.FAITH STRUGGLES, I WAS HOPING YOU COULD TELL ME HOW TO GET UP AFTER YOU FALL OR FAIL FOR THE 50,000TH TIME.
 :angel:see that angel smiley that won't even show it's face in my post (that's par for the course lately)....definitely NOT me; do you have anything with horns.

I don't know if this post is in the right place, but I have been sick and stuck at home and right now, this is one of the few places I can hang out an talk to other Orthodox Christians....I suppose this whole thing belongs where-ever anybody could offer up a prayer for me, for us.



Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 18, 2009, 07:32:28 AM
I must admit that I found reading this thread incredibly discouraging; I had often feared that sharing the conclusions of my personal theological and historical research might lead to scandal or confusion, but, as this thread has shown, the level of ambiguity and confusion that *already* exists on extremely relevant questions of sexual morality within our contemporary context is absolutely intolerable and harmful to those attempting to take their faith seriously within a dating or marriage relationship.

No. You are wrong on that, dear friend. It WOULD be so if we were the Roman Catholic Church with her "the Church (Pope) says so and so about this and that." But we aren't. Our whole understanding of what we do and why is different from the Roman "juridic," dogmatic, doctrinal understanding. We have our priests, God bless them; and with them, we discuss things like contraception if we feel that these things tand on the way of our theosis. Discuss, of course, confidentially and on a personal, case-to-case, basis. That's all. My only reason for even participating in this thread is to tell my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

That's NOT "confusing" or "causing ambiguity." On the contrary, this situation makes us, individual members of the Body of Christ, a lot more - not less - responsible ofr what WE do in our lives. 
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 18, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
More likely, you did not know enough about the Catholic Church before you left.

I knew enough to keep searching until I found the fulness of truth. But thanks anyway fro your opinion all wise one!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 18, 2009, 08:22:28 AM
my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

Dear Heorhij,

Christ is Risen!

The Russian Orthodox Church does have a teaching on contraception, at least in broad thems.  It was formulated by the Synod of Russian Bishops at its Millennial Synod in 2000.   It can be found on the Forum - Message #15 in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18918.msg279100.html#msg279100
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 18, 2009, 08:26:27 AM
[Yeah, methinks Mickey might be polemicist maximus
Huh?


If you don't want to be part of the RCC,

I do not.


but you don't have to go around picking fights.

I am not picking fights. I have already shown that the RC's must submit mind and will to the Pope whether ex-cathedra statements or otherwise.

Furthermore there have been statements from popes such as this:

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.
Pope Pius IX  "The Guardian", April 11, 1866.


So...do you mind telling me where I am picking fights?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 18, 2009, 09:01:59 AM
my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

Dear Heorhij,

Christ is Risen!

The Russian Orthodox Church does have a teaching on contraception, at least in broad thems.  It was formulated by the Synod of Russian Bishops at its Millennial Synod in 2000.   It can be found on the Forum - Message #15 in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18918.msg279100.html#msg279100

He is Risen indeed!

Thank you, Father, but I won't read it. Not really interested. There was a time when the ROC condemned men who shaved their beards as "Latin heretics" - quite seriously, at a special local Council, which later became known as the Stoglav ("the one-hundred chapter Council"). One of the rulings of that Council said that it is God's natural law that men have beards, and if a man shaves his beard, he must be excommunicated, and if he happens to die, there should be no memorial church services, and his relatives should not even lite candles remembering the name of this horrible transgressor.

Again, I am absolutely convinced that the very nature of my Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church = the Orthodox Church, is pastoral and liturgical, and not doctrinal - juridical - dogmatic. We have our dogmatics elaborated on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that should be enough. The questions about whether or not an Orthodox is allowed to use a condom or a contraceptive pill aren't in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and, therefore, will be decided between an individual faithful and his or her parish priest.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 18, 2009, 09:06:42 AM
The questions about whether or not an Orthodox is allowed to use a condom or a contraceptive pill aren't in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and, therefore, will be decided between an individual faithful and his or her parish priest.

Yes.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 18, 2009, 10:48:21 AM
No. You are wrong on that, dear friend. It WOULD be so if we were the Roman Catholic Church with her "the Church (Pope) says so and so about this and that." But we aren't. Our whole understanding of what we do and why is different from the Roman "juridic," dogmatic, doctrinal understanding. We have our priests, God bless them; and with them, we discuss things like contraception if we feel that these things stand on the way of our theosis. Discuss, of course, confidentially and on a personal, case-to-case, basis. That's all. My only reason for even participating in this thread is to tell my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers predetermine what's determined on a "case by case" basis and you refuse to consider textual or historical evidence to the contrary; priests in both the RCC and the Orthodox Church make "case by case" decisions within a predetermined domain.  The Church has historically policed the marriage bed until the last century on the basis of those sources.

Quote
We have our dogmatics elaborated on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and that should be enough. The questions about whether or not an Orthodox is allowed to use a condom or a contraceptive pill aren't in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and, therefore, will be decided between an individual faithful and his or her parish priest.

Upon what do Ecumenical Councils base their doctrines and canons? The Ecumenical Councils are the cart; Scripture, the Holy Fathers, other councils and accepted notions of justice and fairness are the horse. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemns mixed marriages as unlawful and the Council of Chalcedon condemns abolitionism:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21235.msg319889.html#msg319889

Let no Orthodox man be allowed to contract a marriage with a heretical woman, nor moreover let any Orthodox woman be married to a heretical man. But if it should be discovered that any such thing is done by any one of the Christians, no matter who, let the marriage be deemed void, and let the lawless marriage tie be dissolved. For it is not right to mix things immiscible, nor to let a wolf get tangled up with a sheep, and the lot of sinners get tangled up with the portion of Christ. If, therefore, anyone violates the rules we have made let him be excommunicated. [Canon 72, Council of Trullo, Sixth Ecumenical Council]

Are you going to enforce these and similar canons just because the Councils say so?  Christ said Moses permitted divorce because of the "hardness of men's hearts" and "what God has joined together let no man separate." So do you condemn the Church's formal toleration of multiple divorces and remarriages? I ask you: What range of previously condemned sexual behaviors are you prepared to have examined "case by case"? Is everything aside from adultery up in the air? I will press your assumptions to their logical conclusions.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 18, 2009, 11:17:22 AM
Upon what do Ecumenical Councils base their doctrines and canons? The Ecumenical Councils are the cart; Scripture, the Holy Fathers, other councils and accepted notions of justice and fairness are the horse. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemns mixed marriages as unlawful and the Council of Chalcedon condemns abolitionism:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21235.msg319889.html#msg319889

Let no Orthodox man be allowed to contract a marriage with a heretical woman, nor moreover let any Orthodox woman be married to a heretical man. But if it should be discovered that any such thing is done by any one of the Christians, no matter who, let the marriage be deemed void, and let the lawless marriage tie be dissolved. For it is not right to mix things immiscible, nor to let a wolf get tangled up with a sheep, and the lot of sinners get tangled up with the portion of Christ. If, therefore, anyone violates the rules we have made let him be excommunicated. [Canon 72, Council of Trullo, Sixth Ecumenical Council]

Are you going to enforce these and similar canons just because the Councils say so? 

Well, *I* am not going to enforce anything simply because I: (1) am a layman, and (2) have no business telling other Orthodox people whom they should or should not marry. I know that many bishops have in the past allowed and blessed marriages where only one party was an Orthodox Christian and the other was a Heterodox. So, obviously the canons you quote have merely historical significance - they aren't a part of what we call "Church Dogmatics."
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 18, 2009, 01:01:21 PM
Heorhij,

I'm going to make this as simple as possible. I would like a response to a claim I made and a question I raised:

(1) Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers predetermine what's determined on a "case by case" basis and you refuse to consider textual or historical evidence to the contrary; priests in both the RCC and the Orthodox Church make "case by case" decisions within a predetermined domain. The Church has historically policed the marriage bed until the last century on the basis of those sources.

(2) What consensual heterosexual behavior aside from adultery do you understand as condemned by the Church *a priori*?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Fr. George on May 18, 2009, 01:25:48 PM
(2) What consensual heterosexual behavior aside from adultery do you understand as condemned by the Church *a priori*?

Are you including fornication and incest (within 6 degrees) in the general category of "adultery?"
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 18, 2009, 02:41:40 PM
Heorhij,

I'm going to make this as simple as possible. I would like a response to a claim I made and a question I raised:

(1) Scripture, the Councils and the Fathers predetermine what's determined on a "case by case" basis and you refuse to consider textual or historical evidence to the contrary; priests in both the RCC and the Orthodox Church make "case by case" decisions within a predetermined domain. The Church has historically policed the marriage bed until the last century on the basis of those sources.

(2) What consensual heterosexual behavior aside from adultery do you understand as condemned by the Church *a priori*?

As I do not see a question in your point (1), I will respond to point (2): I simply do not know. I do know that some individual Church writers and preachers wrote and preached against having marital sex solely for satisfying one's lust. But I have no idea whether something like this ever became "the teaching of the whole CHURCH." I am rather inclined to think that it never has.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 18, 2009, 02:45:02 PM
(2) What consensual heterosexual behavior aside from adultery do you understand as condemned by the Church *a priori*?

Are you including fornication and incest (within 6 degrees) in the general category of "adultery?"

I think Cudgel means, boadly, extra-marital sex, right, Cudgel? Because if you only mean under "adultery" having sex with someone you aren't married to when you are married, then, of course, there are other forms of adult consensual sex that the Church considers sinful - for example, pre-marital sex, or sex with someone who is not maaried to you but who is married to a third party while you are not married, etc. Any form of sex outside of the marital commitment has been, traditionally, considered sinful and unacceptable. But within marriage - see my previous post, I just do not know.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 18, 2009, 03:20:21 PM
The questions about whether or not an Orthodox is allowed to use a condom or a contraceptive pill aren't in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and, therefore, will be decided between an individual faithful and his or her parish priest.

For the Russian faithful this is not so open.  Both the faithful and their parish priests must respect the teaching of the bishops expressed in 2000 and decisions have to be made within the framework of that episcopal teaching.  In the past there were priests who totally disallowed any form of contraception to the faithful, including NFP.  Priests may no longer hold this position since it would be in defiance of their bishops.

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 18, 2009, 05:01:51 PM
Cleveland and Heorhij,

I was referring to both marital and nonmarital sex, "fornication" is equally possible within both contexts as it just means "sexual immorality."  The question is what constitutes sex and under what conditions is it morally licit. My long comment on page 2 addresses how this question has been answered historically.  I will post this link one more time, please read it carefully:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm

I'll be back late tonight; I'm going to leave this information so we're all on the same page historically:

Quote
(S.V. Troitsky, The Philosophy of Christian Marriage, pp. 174-181)

“From the sovereign character of the family Roman law drew the conclusion that it was not the state that made a marriage a marriage, and not a religious organization, but exclusively the marrying parties themselves, their mutual love, their will, their agreement. Nuptiae solo affectu fiunt, nuptiae consensu contrahentium fiunt, consensus facit nuptias – such was the basic position of Roman and Byzantine, ecclesiastical and civil law in the first 8 centuries of Christian history. Moreover, in more ancient times the religious form of marriage, confarreatio, was necessary not to make marriage valid, but for manus, that is, for the acquisition by the husband of authority over the wife.

“But if marriage is concluded by the marrying parties themselves, then in what does the task of the State in relation to marriage consist? Only in verifying its existence for itself, only in registering the marriage, to the extent that this was necessary for the resolution of various questions of family and inheritance law. And Roman law left it to the will of the marrying parties to choose any form of marriage they liked, contenting itself with the minimum for its own verification.

“In ancient Rome there existed a view with regard to marriage that was the opposite of our own. We have a presumption that those living together are not married. In our time a married couple must itself prove with documents, witnesses, etc., that it is in lawful wedlock. In Rome, by contrast, the presumption was that those living together were married.

“Every permanent sexual relationship of a fully entitled man and woman was seen as a marriage. ‘We must see living together with a free woman as marriage, and not concubinage,’ writes the noted Roman jurist Modestinus. Therefore it was not the marrying parties that had to prove that they were in wedlock, but a third interested party had to prove that there existed some kind of impediment which did not allow one to see this living together as marriage. To put it more briefly, onus probandi lay not on the spouses, but on the third parties. Only when there was a basis for thinking that it was in the family or property interests of the parties to present a temporary relationship as marriage was the question of the formal criteria of marriage raised. But even in this case Roman law contented itself with the minimum. For this it was sufficient, for example, to show that there had been de facto living together for a year, the testimonies of witnesses that the parties had indeed agreed to marry or to call each other Mr. and Mrs., that some kind of marital rite had been performed, the presentation of documents with regard to the dowry, etc. In a word, speaking in legal terms, in Rome the participation of the State in the conclusion of a marriage did not have a constitutive, but only a declarative character.

“Byzantine legislation adopted the same point of view until the end of the 9th century. The constitution of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in 428 says that for the validity of marriage neither a wedding feast is necessary, nor documents on a dowry, nor any festivity, since no law hindered the marriage of fully entitled people. Marriage acquired validity by means of agreement and the testimony of witnesses. Although Justinian, in his novella 74 of December, 537, prescribed that middle-class people should go to church to conclude their marriage, this demand was based on considerations, not of a religious, but only of an economic character, which is indicated by the fact that the very separation of this class of people was in accordance with their property census. And indeed, Justinian demanded that middle-class people should go to church not in order to be crowned, but only in order to draw up a document on marriage in front of an ecclesiastical lawyer and three or four clergy as witnesses. But even this formality did not last long, and on December 11, 542, novella 117 (ch. 4) freed even middle-class people from this obligation. Only upper-class people (illustres et senatores), again for reasons having to do with property, had to write documents on the dowry, while the lower classes were not obliged to write any documents at all. In the same novella 74 (chapter 5), Justinian gave the significance of an optional form of marriage, not to crowning, but to the oath ‘to take as my wife’ while touching the Bible. Only in a legislative collection of the 8th century, more precisely: in the collection of 741 of the iconoclast emperors Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Copronymus known as the Eclogue, was a blessing as a juridical form of concluding a marriage mentioned for the first time. But even here a blessing is not an obligatory form for the conclusion of a marriage, but only one of four forms of marriage, the choice of which depends on external circumstances and the will of the marrying parties; in other words, here a Church blessing is only an optional form of marriage, and even then not always, but only in case of necessity, and it is precisely the Eclogue that prescribes that marriage must be concluded by means of the drawing up of a document of a definite form, and when, as a consequence of the poverty of the spouses, it is impossible to draw up the document, the marriage can be concluded either through the agreement of the parents, or through a Church blessing, or through the witness of friends (Eclogue, II, 1,3,8). It is exactly the same with crowning; it is an optional form of marriage, say also the later laws of the Byzantine emperors – the Prochiron of 878 (IV, 6,14,17,27), the Epanagoge of 886 (XVI, 1) and the collection known as Blastaris’ Syntagma of 1335 (G., 2, translation of Ilyinsky, p. 103). ‘Marriage,’ we read in Blastaris, ‘is concluded by means of a blessing, or crowning, or an agreement’.

“That is how the ancient Church, too, looked on the form of marriage. The basic source of the Church’s teaching on marriage, the Bible, does not say that the institution of marriage arose some time later as something established by the State or the Church. Here we find another teaching on marriage. Neither the Church nor the State is the source of marriage. On the contrary: marriage is the source of both the Church and the State. Marriage precedes all the social and religious organizations. It was established already in Paradise, it was established by God Himself. God brings the woman to Adam, and Adam himself proclaims his marital union independently of any earthly authority, even the authority of parents (Genesis 2.24; cf. Matthew 19.6). Thus the first marriage was concluded ‘by the mercy of God’. In the first marriage the husband and wife are the bearers of the highest earthly authority, they are sovereigns to whom the whole of the rest of the world is subject (Genesis 1.28). The family is the first form of the Church, it is the ‘little Church’, as Chrysostom calls it, and at the same time it is the source also of the State as an organization of power, since according to the Bible the basis of every authority of man over man is to be found in the words of God on the authority of the husband over the wife: ‘he will be your lord’ (Genesis 3.16). Thus the family is not only a little Church, but also a little State. And if that is so, then the relationship of the family with the Church and the State must have a character of equality, the character of international and inter-Church relations. Therefore the performers of marriage are considered in the sources of the Church’s teaching to be the spouses themselves, and the participation of a representative of authority, whether of the Church or of the State, is not an essential element of marriage, is not a condition of its validity. In the whole Bible, both in the Old and in the New Testaments, we do not find a single word on any kind of obligatory form of marriage, although here we do find many prescriptions of a ritual character. The relationship of the Church and the State to marriage is expressed not in its conclusion, but only in its verification, in its recognition as an already accomplished fact. Just as the recognition of authority in a State on the part of another State does not give this authority new rights, but is only the condition of normal relations between these States, so the participation of a representative of society, whether of the Church or of the State, is the condition of normal relations between them and the new family.

“Therefore the relationship of the Church to marriage was one of recognition. This idea is well expressed in the Gospel account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee (John 1.1-11). Reference is sometimes made to this account as a proof of the teaching that the accomplisher of marriage is the priest. In fact, the Gospel account is not in agreement with this point of view. The Gospel makes no mention whatsoever of the participation of Christ in the rite of the conclusion of the marriage. Christ came with His apostles as a guest; he was invited to the wedding feast. But participation in the wedding feast was, generally speaking, an expression of the recognition of marriage on the part of society, and the presence of Christ and the apostles had the significance of a recognition of the Old Testament institution of marriage on the part of the new Church.

“This is also how the ancient Christian Church herself looked on the form of marriage. Her teaching on the form of marriage coincides with the teaching of the Bible and Roman law. Therefore the ancient Christians, who did not permit the slightest compromise with the State pagan religion and preferred a martyr’s death to participation in the smallest pagan rite, entered into marriage in the time of the persecutions and later in exactly the same way as the other citizens of the Roman State. ‘They, that is, the Christians, conclude marriage in the same way as everyone,’ says an ancient Christian writer of the 2nd century in the Epistle to Diognetus (V, 6). ‘Each of us recognizes as his wife the woman whom he took in accordance with the laws published by you (i.e. the pagans),’ says Athenagoras in his Apology (33, P.G. 6:965) submitted to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (166-177). St. Ambrose of Milan says that Christians take wives ‘in accordance with the tablets’, that is, in accordance with the Roman laws of the 12 tablets (On the Institution of Virginity, 6; P.L. 16:316). Chrysostom says definitively: ‘Marriage is concluded in no other way than by agreement according to the laws’ (Homily 56 on Genesis, 29; P.G. 54:488). The first canon of the Council of Laodicea demands that marriage should be concluded only ‘freely and lawfully’, that is, in accordance with the Roman laws. The ancient Church completely assimilated the basic teaching of Roman marital law, that marriage is concluded by the spouses themselves, that consensus facit nuptias. This teaching is found among the most authoritative representatives of Church teaching both in the East and in the West, for example, in John Chrysostom, Balsamon, Ambrose of Milan, Blessed Augustine, Isidore, Pope Nicholas I, and others.

“Finally, we find the same teaching in the official collections of Byzantine law which have been adopted by the Orthodox Church.”
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 08:16:18 AM
The questions about whether or not an Orthodox is allowed to use a condom or a contraceptive pill aren't in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils and, therefore, will be decided between an individual faithful and his or her parish priest.

For the Russian faithful this is not so open.  Both the faithful and their parish priests must respect the teaching of the bishops expressed in 2000 and decisions have to be made within the framework of that episcopal teaching.  In the past there were priests who totally disallowed any form of contraception to the faithful, including NFP.  Priests may no longer hold this position since it would be in defiance of their bishops.



Like Cleveland says, "hmmmm..."

I realy don't know what to say, Father. So, the priests right after the Stoglav did the right thing, obeying their bishops and warning their flock that shaving one's beard is a horrible transgression, correct?

Now, they no longer give this warning, because their bishops changed their mind - correct?

So what's the TRUTH in the issue of shaving?

Or in the issue of non-"natural" contraception?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 19, 2009, 08:48:21 AM
So what's the TRUTH in the issue of shaving?

Or in the issue of non-"natural" contraception?

Does shaving the beard distort the essence of the faith?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 08:55:36 AM
So what's the TRUTH in the issue of shaving?

Or in the issue of non-"natural" contraception?

Does shaving the beard distort the essence of the faith?

Oh yes, very much, according to the decisions of the Stoglav; like I said, men who shaved their beards were declared by that local Church Council to be "Latin heretics," excommunicated, and their relatives were forbidden to even lite candles in their memory if they died.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 19, 2009, 09:04:11 AM

Like Cleveland says, "hmmmm..."

I realy don't know what to say, Father. So, the priests right after the Stoglav did the right thing, obeying their bishops and warning their flock that shaving one's beard is a horrible transgression, correct?

The Stoglav Council forbade the shaving not just of beards but of the head also.  Russian man were shaving their entire heads bald!!    This worried the Church since their horrified womenfolk were refusing them their marital rights and the population was declining...... and you thought that this had no connection with this Natural Contraception thread ?!   ;D


Stoglav 25. Those who shave their heads and beards: Through our sins, weakness and indifference and negligence have come into the world. At the present time men who call themselves Christians and are thirty years of age and older shave their heads, beards, and whiskers, and wear clothing and costumes taken from lands of dissident faith; how then can a Christian be recognized?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 19, 2009, 09:05:27 AM
Oh yes, very much, according to the decisions of the Stoglav; like I said, men who shaved their beards were declared by that local Church Council to be "Latin heretics," excommunicated, and their relatives were forbidden to even lite candles in their memory if they died.

Please pardon my ignorance (or if it was posted and I missed it), but I am not familiar with Stoglav. Did Stoglav declare doctrine on the issue of beards?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 19, 2009, 09:09:43 AM
I understand why there were prohibitions on shaving the beards at one time--because there were many writings from the holy fathers on the issue.

For example:

“It is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man’s natural and noble adornment.” Clement of Alexandria

“The beard must not be plucked. ‘You will not deface the figure of your beard’.” [Lev 19:27] – St. Cyprian of Carthage

Are there also writngs from the holy fathers regarding contraception?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 19, 2009, 09:26:37 AM
Or in the issue of non-"natural" contraception?

I think that the Russian Orthodox are blessed to have some clear guidelines from their Holy Synod of Bishops.   There can be no doubt that when the Synod made its statement in 2000 it was done after careful consideration of all the preceding decades of discussion and controversy.  The Synod would have deliberated on the issue seriously and prayerfully.  They would have been very aware what an important issue it was for the flock entrusted to them.

So they laid down guidelines that

1.  non-abortive means of contraception are permissable
2.  one of the primary purposes of marriage is the generation of children and that cannot be indefinitely postposed without sinning (although there can be exceptions such as danger to the wife's health and life.)
3.  the decision to use contraception should be made in consultation with the couple's priest.

I cannot speak for other Churches and what guidelines they follow.  Maybe someone can help us out?  The Greeks do have Patriarch Athenagoras's 1966 statement to Pope Paul VI that his Church is in complete agreement with the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.   But whether that is followed I do not know?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 19, 2009, 09:35:50 AM
I cannot speak for other Churches and what guidelines they follow.  Maybe someone can help us out?  The Greeks do have Patriarch Athenagoras's 1966 statement to Pope Paul VI that his Church is in complete agreement with the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.   But whether that is followed I do not know?

Here is where we have come from:

Quote
Having said all this, what exactly is the Church's teaching concerning birth control?

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many - have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement.

http://www.roca.org/OA/155-156/155h.htm

A complete 180 degree turn justified on the basis of the scientific revolution last century? Yes. Is the shift in pastoral policy according to presently acknowledged truth finished? Not yet, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 19, 2009, 09:40:45 AM

1.  non-abortive means of contraception are permissable
2.  one of the primary purposes of marriage is the generation of children and that cannot be indefinitely postposed without sinning (although there can be exceptions such as danger to the wife's health and life.)
3.  the decision to use contraception should be made in consultation with the couple's priest.

Thank you Father. This is what I had always understood.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 10:00:15 AM

1.  non-abortive means of contraception are permissable
2.  one of the primary purposes of marriage is the generation of children and that cannot be indefinitely postposed without sinning (although there can be exceptions such as danger to the wife's health and life.)
3.  the decision to use contraception should be made in consultation with the couple's priest.

Thank you Father. This is what I had always understood.

Thank you, Father, from me, too. (Actually, I think they did not say that "non-abortive methods are permissible" - rather, they stated that there is "a difference" between abortion and contraception and that the latter does not necessarily mean the former). My issue with these "statements" still remains, though: what if they decided otherwise and said that let all who use any contraception in any form be anathema (just like they used to in the past)? Generally, is this a good Orthodox way for a bunch of bishops to convene and to decide on things like contraception? Again, they used to convene and decide on the grand, oh-so-so-so-"important" question of beard-shaving as well...
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 10:03:22 AM
Oh yes, very much, according to the decisions of the Stoglav; like I said, men who shaved their beards were declared by that local Church Council to be "Latin heretics," excommunicated, and their relatives were forbidden to even lite candles in their memory if they died.

Please pardon my ignorance (or if it was posted and I missed it), but I am not familiar with Stoglav. Did Stoglav declare doctrine on the issue of beards?

It was a local (Pomestnyj) Council (Sobor) of the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate in the late 16th or early 17-th century (almost immediately prior to the beginning of Nikon's reforms). I read about it in the book by Prot. Fr. Alexander Schmemann titled "The Historical Road of Orthodoxy." If you are interested, I will provide you with precise quotes from that book (which are, actually, precise quotes of the decisions of that Council).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 10:06:38 AM
I understand why there were prohibitions on shaving the beards at one time--because there were many writings from the holy fathers on the issue.

For example:

“It is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man’s natural and noble adornment.” Clement of Alexandria

“The beard must not be plucked. ‘You will not deface the figure of your beard’.” [Lev 19:27] – St. Cyprian of Carthage

Are there also writngs from the holy fathers regarding contraception?

Yes, I remember reading - if I am not mistaken, in this same Clement of Alexandria - something like, "those couples that lie together and do "this thing," but aren't doing it for bringing forth a child, are horrible transgressors and perverts" (not an exact quote but that's essentially what he wrote). But again, the truth remains, saints, Holy Fathers, bishops, patriarchs and who not, used to make most atrociously barbaric statements on certain issues (like beard-shaving:)) - so why should we believe in infallibility of "a" next convention of some clerics who decided this or that on such intimate issues as the use of contraceptive devices in marriage?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 19, 2009, 10:08:16 AM
My issue with these "statements" still remains, though: what if they decided otherwise and said that let all who use any contraception in any form be anathema (just like they used to in the past)? Generally, is this a good Orthodox way for a bunch of bishops to convene and to decide on things like contraception? Again, they used to convene and decide on the grand, oh-so-so-so-"important" question of beard-shaving as well...

Your idealist conception of pastoral policy as mostly case by case is a historical fabrication. This is how things are done 90%+ of the time.

Quote
Having said all this, what exactly is the Church's teaching concerning birth control?

The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Likewise, the Romanian and Russian Churches, to name just two others among many - have more than once, in former times, spoken out against this practice. It is only in recent times, only in the generation since World War II, that some local Churches (the Greek Archdiocese in this country, for example) have begun to teach that it "might" be all right to practice birth control in certain circumstances, as long as this is discussed with the priest beforehand and has his agreement.

http://www.roca.org/OA/155-156/155h.htm
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 19, 2009, 10:12:26 AM
Yes, I remember reading - if I am not mistaken, in this same Clement of Alexandria - something like, "those couples that lie together and do "this thing," but aren't doing it for bringing forth a child, are horrible transgressors and perverts" (not an exact quote but that's essentially what he wrote). But again, the truth remains, saints, Holy Fathers, bishops, patriarchs and who not, used to make most atrociously barbaric statements on certain issues (like beard-shaving:)) - so why should we believe in infallibility of "a" next convention of some clerics who decided this or that on such intimate issues as the use of contraceptive devices in marriage?

What you ascribe to Clement of Alexandria is present in many Fathers and even canons afterward. Just like when you are reading the Bible or praying the Psalms you have to distinguish the theology from the pre-scientific cosmology and rejected social mores.  You must do the same with the Fathers and Synods.  Societies have different notions of fairness and kindness and what the proper love of neighbor looks like must adjust with them. Dogma is static, the application of dogma (moral reasoning) is constantly updated according to new conditions and information. Something on target in the past may become a mistake in the future. (Fathers owning daughters, for example.)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 10:18:45 AM
Your idealist conception of pastoral policy as mostly case by case is a historical fabrication.

Dear Cudgel, believe me, I did not make it up, I simply rendered on this forum what I learned from actual living, breathing priests (from Orthodox priests and from Eastern Rite Catholic priests). I do not consider myself learned enough to question what I heard from them.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 19, 2009, 10:34:08 AM
Your idealist conception of pastoral policy as mostly case by case is a historical fabrication.

Dear Cudgel, believe me, I did not make it up, I simply rendered on this forum what I learned from actual living, breathing priests (from Orthodox priests and from Eastern Rite Catholic priests). I do not consider myself learned enough to question what I heard from them.

As I said before (and I tire of repeating), they can advise within a predetermined domain of what's acceptable and what's not.  For example, before the last century an Orthodox Christian could never marry a non-Orthodox Christian, period. Often birth control was evil and unacceptable under all circumstances, period.  What we are discussing are changes in domain.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 19, 2009, 10:46:00 AM
The practice of artificial birth control - by which is meant "the pill," condoms, or any other kind of device - is actually condemned by the Orthodox Church. The Church of Greece, for example, in 1937 issued a special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control.

Without impugning the integrity of Fr Alexey (now hieromonk Ambrose) Young's article nor himself personally (I have great respect for him), I have to say that this claimed 1937 Greek encyclical is one of the most elusive items on the planet.   For years we have sought it and never found it.  One would have thought that such a "special encyclical just for this purpose, to condemn birth control" would be readily available but no, nobody has ever been able to produce it.

It has only one mention in all the pile of literature on contaception, but beyond a mention there is not even the smallest quote from it...

Foundation of Christian Bioethics
By Hugo Tristram Engelhardt

page 298

Reference No. 96:  Recent Orthodox reactions to the contraceptive
ethos include the encyclical of the Greek bishops signed by Archbishop
Chrysostom of Athens with 55 other bishops.  "Encyclical of the
Hierarchy of Greece." October 14, 1937.  The encyclical to the moral
sea change in the view of marriage and sexuality introduced by the
secularization of the West and the introduction of effective
contraception....etc.


I recall that Hugo Tristram Engelhardt is a Texan and a convert to
Orthodoxy.   The book "Foundation of Christian Bioethics" was published in
2000 and is his contribution to the Orthodox understanding of bioethics but
I have never seen it quoted anywhere and wonder how well it has been
accepted by the Orthodox.

Have any Orthodox members here heard of Engelhardt or read his book?



Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on May 19, 2009, 10:46:01 AM
Thank you, Father, from me, too. (Actually, I think they did not say that "non-abortive methods are permissible" - rather, they stated that there is "a difference" between abortion and contraception and that the latter does not necessarily mean the former).

The statement of the Synod of Russian bishops is already on the Forum ~ message #15 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18918.msg279100.html#msg279100

It's pretty short and I'd be happy to post it here but I am unsure of the Forum's policy about cross-posting?

Irish Hermit---

Once again, please read the Compiled Board Policies thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.0.html), one part of which answers your question:


Quote
In an attempt to prevent unsolicited [and potentially harmful] advertisements going out to our board members, the administration of Orthodoxchristianity.net requires that all of the below listed activities receive administration approval prior to being posted or sent out either publicly or via private message (PM):

1) Posting of a link/advertisement to any website not related to the ongoing thread discussion.  If it is the first topic in the thread, or if the link IS relevant to the conversation at hand, it is required that the poster post a paragraph of text from the article in question into the thread.  The poster can then include a DIRECT link to the article in that post below the paragraph of text.

2) Links to one's own blog as a means of advertisement, without citing the relevant part of the blog that the author is quoting, are not allowed.  However, alerting users to another blog is acceptable as long as it is relevant to a thread.

*Note: links in your signature are permissible and do not require authorization

3) Posting of links advertising any webfora, unless the link is made under the following conditions:
    a) The link is made to discuss a topic referred to on the other webfora.
    b) Permission from the author of the post on the 'linked to' webfora is received for this use.
 

What will NOT be accepted:

1) Request for any sort of donation: money, items, etc.
2) Private message to forum members:
    a) soliciting donations
    b) advertising other websites/fora
    c) sending chain letters
    d) sending threats or harassments.

As a reminder, you can use the "Report to moderator" function within both the board itself and also within private message if you feel at any time there is a violation of board policy taking place.

+FrChris
Admin
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Mickey on May 19, 2009, 11:03:09 AM
so why should we believe in infallibility of "a" next convention of some clerics who decided this or that on such intimate issues as the use of contraceptive devices in marriage?

Infallibility?!?  :o
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 11:18:52 AM
so why should we believe in infallibility of "a" next convention of some clerics who decided this or that on such intimate issues as the use of contraceptive devices in marriage?

Infallibility?!?  :o

Well, you know what I mean... In other words, should we and our parish priests feel BOUND by decisions of these gatherings, whatever they are.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 19, 2009, 11:19:58 AM
Well, you know what I mean... In other words, should we and our parish priests feel BOUND by decisions of these gatherings, whatever they are.

Consider the serious implications of either a yes or a no answer.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Rosehip on May 19, 2009, 01:17:50 PM
Forgive the tangent, but in one of the posts (bother, I can't find it anymore :(), someone stated that taking birth control pills can prevent certain kinds of cancer? Could somebody please tell me which kinds of cancer can be prevented by doing so, and provide me if possible, with sources? Many thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 19, 2009, 02:42:09 PM
Forgive the tangent, but in one of the posts (bother, I can't find it anymore :(), someone stated that taking birth control pills can prevent certain kinds of cancer? Could somebody please tell me which kinds of cancer can be prevented by doing so, and provide me if possible, with sources? Many thanks in advance.

Yes, I have read this, too, although I am not a narrow specialist in this field and would not at this point judge about how valid these statements are. See, for example, here:

http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/birthcontrolpills

... Benefits: (...) Prevent cancer. Birth control pills have been shown to protect women from ovarian and uterine cancer, and possibly from colorectal cancer.


On the other hand, there are some observations that birth control pills actually INCREASE the risk of certain forms of cancer, for example cervical cancer:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

Key Points

Some cancers depend on naturally occurring sex hormones for their development and growth. Researchers are interested in learning whether the hormones in oral contraceptives affect cancer risk in women (see Question 1).
Some studies have shown an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking oral contraceptives, while other studies have shown no change in risk (see Question 2).
Oral contraceptive use has been shown in multiple studies to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer (see Question 3).
Oral contraceptives have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer; however, human papillomavirus is the major risk factor for this disease (see Question 4).
The risk of liver cancer is increased in women who take oral contraceptives and are otherwise considered low risk for the disease (see Question 5).
 

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Rosehip on May 19, 2009, 03:53:05 PM
Thanks, Heorhij! I had wondered about this because I had read somewhere that colorectal cancer could possibly be caused by low estrogen levels, and therefore, was wondering about a possible reduction due to BC pill consumption. Anyhow, sorry about the diversion from the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 21, 2009, 09:36:12 PM
my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

Dear Heorhij,

Christ is Risen!

The Russian Orthodox Church does have a teaching on contraception, at least in broad thems.  It was formulated by the Synod of Russian Bishops at its Millennial Synod in 2000.   It can be found on the Forum - Message #15 in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18918.msg279100.html#msg279100

Thanks, irishhermit, but doesn't that contradoct the general pre-1930 opinion? Also, what about the fathers:

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).


Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

I got those from Catholic Answers: here's more:

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

Come to think of it, what about the guy in Genesis who was slain for spilling his seed upon the ground?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on May 22, 2009, 12:46:36 PM
^Onan.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 22, 2009, 01:15:56 PM
my brothers and sisters from the Roman archdiocese that they simply should not try to find out, just what is it that the Orthodox Church teaches on contraception - because She does not.

Dear Heorhij,

Christ is Risen!

The Russian Orthodox Church does have a teaching on contraception, at least in broad thems.  It was formulated by the Synod of Russian Bishops at its Millennial Synod in 2000.   It can be found on the Forum - Message #15 in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18918.msg279100.html#msg279100

Thanks, irishhermit, but doesn't that contradoct the general pre-1930 opinion? Also, what about the fathers:

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).


Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

I got those from Catholic Answers: here's more:

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

Come to think of it, what about the guy in Genesis who was slain for spilling his seed upon the ground?

Dear Pilgrim (and others),

In this regard, may I ask, very sincerely (as I already have on this forum):

WHO CARES?

I mean, Fathers are Fathers, they are great, they shaped beliefs of the early Church, their writings on theological matters helped to form the present-day Church dogmatics. But why should it be of any importance to us if they had these weird and sometimes plain barbaric views on human reproduction?

If we HAVE to share every particular belief that they had, why don't we say that the Mendeleev periodic table of elements is a lie and a heresy, because St. John of Damascus wrote ("taught") that there are but four "stikhia" (elements)?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue (not as much contraception as, more generally, the "teachings" of various Fathers on various matters) is really tormenting me.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Ebor on May 22, 2009, 06:41:58 PM
As I understand it, Onan was not slain specifically for the "spilling of seed" be because he would not impregnate his sister-in-law so that she might have a son in her late husband's/Onan's brother's name.  It was the "Levirate" law

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/leviratelaw.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

Ebor
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 22, 2009, 07:23:59 PM
As I understand it, Onan was not slain specifically for the "spilling of seed" be because he would not impregnate his sister-in-law so that she might have a son in her late husband's/Onan's brother's name.  It was the "Levirate" law

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/leviratelaw.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

Ebor

I heard that explanation from Evangelical Protestants (i.e. that he was killed for disobeying God, not for exercising birth control). But even if the text actually means that Onan was killed for "wasting the seed) (?????). again - SO WHAT? Cannanites were slaughtered by thousands over thousands by Israelites, including children, for just being Canaanites. So, they deserved it? A "lesson" for us that cerain people must be killed for just being certain people? I don't think we can justify barbaric beliefs by plucking this or that verse from the Good Book...
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 22, 2009, 08:34:05 PM



















Dear Pilgrim (and others),

In this regard, may I ask, very sincerely (as I already have on this forum):

WHO CARES?

I mean, Fathers are Fathers, they are great, they shaped beliefs of the early Church, their writings on theological matters helped to form the present-day Church dogmatics. But why should it be of any importance to us if they had these weird and sometimes plain barbaric views on human reproduction?

If we HAVE to share every particular belief that they had, why don't we say that the Mendeleev periodic table of elements is a lie and a heresy, because St. John of Damascus wrote ("taught") that there are but four "stikhia" (elements)?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue (not as much contraception as, more generally, the "teachings" of various Fathers on various matters) is really tormenting me.
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 22, 2009, 10:59:41 PM

Dear Pilgrim (and others),

In this regard, may I ask, very sincerely (as I already have on this forum):

WHO CARES?

I mean, Fathers are Fathers, they are great, they shaped beliefs of the early Church, their writings on theological matters helped to form the present-day Church dogmatics. But why should it be of any importance to us if they had these weird and sometimes plain barbaric views on human reproduction?

If we HAVE to share every particular belief that they had, why don't we say that the Mendeleev periodic table of elements is a lie and a heresy, because St. John of Damascus wrote ("taught") that there are but four "stikhia" (elements)?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue (not as much contraception as, more generally, the "teachings" of various Fathers on various matters) is really tormenting me.
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

I don't know - are they? All of their "teachings," i.e. every sound they uttered?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 22, 2009, 11:52:32 PM

Dear Pilgrim (and others),

In this regard, may I ask, very sincerely (as I already have on this forum):

WHO CARES?

I mean, Fathers are Fathers, they are great, they shaped beliefs of the early Church, their writings on theological matters helped to form the present-day Church dogmatics. But why should it be of any importance to us if they had these weird and sometimes plain barbaric views on human reproduction?

If we HAVE to share every particular belief that they had, why don't we say that the Mendeleev periodic table of elements is a lie and a heresy, because St. John of Damascus wrote ("taught") that there are but four "stikhia" (elements)?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue (not as much contraception as, more generally, the "teachings" of various Fathers on various matters) is really tormenting me.
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

I don't know - are they? All of their "teachings," i.e. every sound they uttered?
According to Apostolic Tradition? Yes
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: SolEX01 on May 22, 2009, 11:54:25 PM
I recall that Hugo Tristram Engelhardt is a Texan and a convert to
Orthodoxy.   The book "Foundation of Christian Bioethics" was published in
2000 and is his contribution to the Orthodox understanding of bioethics but
I have never seen it quoted anywhere and wonder how well it has been
accepted by the Orthodox.

Have any Orthodox members here heard of Engelhardt or read his book?

Dr. Engelhardt teaches at Rice University (http://philosophy.rice.edu/faculty.cfm?doc_id=837).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 22, 2009, 11:57:41 PM
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

Only Dogma is immutable; how dogma is applied (ethics/pastoral theology) and that upon which dogma is applied (philosophy, science, law, etc.) are not.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 08:11:48 AM

Dear Pilgrim (and others),

In this regard, may I ask, very sincerely (as I already have on this forum):

WHO CARES?

I mean, Fathers are Fathers, they are great, they shaped beliefs of the early Church, their writings on theological matters helped to form the present-day Church dogmatics. But why should it be of any importance to us if they had these weird and sometimes plain barbaric views on human reproduction?

If we HAVE to share every particular belief that they had, why don't we say that the Mendeleev periodic table of elements is a lie and a heresy, because St. John of Damascus wrote ("taught") that there are but four "stikhia" (elements)?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but this issue (not as much contraception as, more generally, the "teachings" of various Fathers on various matters) is really tormenting me.
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

I don't know - are they? All of their "teachings," i.e. every sound they uttered?
According to Apostolic Tradition? Yes

Please explain this? What do you mean by saying that every sound every Father uttered or every letter every Father wrote on every occasion and on any topic is "immutable" according to "Apostolic Tradition" (which is...? define...?)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 08:16:18 AM
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

Only Dogma is immutable; how dogma is applied (ethics/pastoral theology) and that upon which dogma is applied (philosophy, science, law, etc.) are not.

I think I agree with this, plus also that the "Dogma" is, again, not a set of laws or rules, but the Logos Incarnate, Jesus Christ, God Man, and His own teaching of who He is and how He is to be worshipped and glorified "correctly" ("ortho doxon"). The only Orthodox answer to Pontius Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (the central moment of all Scripture) is that the truth is not "what," but Who.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Ebor on May 23, 2009, 10:16:09 AM

I heard that explanation from Evangelical Protestants (i.e. that he was killed for disobeying God, not for exercising birth control). But even if the text actually means that Onan was killed for "wasting the seed) (?????). again - SO WHAT? Cannanites were slaughtered by thousands over thousands by Israelites, including children, for just being Canaanites. So, they deserved it? A "lesson" for us that cerain people must be killed for just being certain people? I don't think we can justify barbaric beliefs by plucking this or that verse from the Good Book...

I was just posting some further information since Onan had been brought up (a habit of mine  ;) ).  I agree with you on this, Heorhij.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 10:27:01 AM

I heard that explanation from Evangelical Protestants (i.e. that he was killed for disobeying God, not for exercising birth control). But even if the text actually means that Onan was killed for "wasting the seed) (?????). again - SO WHAT? Cannanites were slaughtered by thousands over thousands by Israelites, including children, for just being Canaanites. So, they deserved it? A "lesson" for us that cerain people must be killed for just being certain people? I don't think we can justify barbaric beliefs by plucking this or that verse from the Good Book...

I was just posting some further information since Onan had been brought up (a habit of mine  ;) ).  I agree with you on this, Heorhij.

Thank you, Ebor. That was not meant to be a "counterpoint" to your point.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 23, 2009, 03:24:02 PM
To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 03:29:22 PM
To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.

Did they also unanimously believe that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 23, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church. I would probably have disagreements with them on science, but that's really not the point. The Fathers have witnessed the very earliest days of the church, and so I will not join a Church that has changed their teaching. That's why I eliminated Protestantism as a possibility. I of course will not accept everythin just because a Father said it (I would not accept the teachings of, say, Arius) but I will see what the consensus of the Holy Church was on matters of faith, morals, and discpline. How else will I find the One, Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church? Orthodox means, after all, right teaching. And this is the Teaching of the Church which the Fathers attest to.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 23, 2009, 03:38:48 PM
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

Only Dogma is immutable; how dogma is applied (ethics/pastoral theology) and that upon which dogma is applied (philosophy, science, law, etc.) are not.

I think I agree with this, plus also that the "Dogma" is, again, not a set of laws or rules, but the Logos Incarnate, Jesus Christ, God Man, and His own teaching of who He is and how He is to be worshipped and glorified "correctly" ("ortho doxon"). The only Orthodox answer to Pontius Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (the central moment of all Scripture) is that the truth is not "what," but Who.
This is the definiton for "Dogma" I got from Miriam-Webster Online:
 Main Entry:dog·ma
Pronunciation:\ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta  \-mə-tə\
Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date:1638
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 23, 2009, 04:58:11 PM
I thought the teachings of the early Church Doctors were to be considered immutable?

Only Dogma is immutable; how dogma is applied (ethics/pastoral theology) and that upon which dogma is applied (philosophy, science, law, etc.) are not.

I think I agree with this, plus also that the "Dogma" is, again, not a set of laws or rules, but the Logos Incarnate, Jesus Christ, God Man, and His own teaching of who He is and how He is to be worshipped and glorified "correctly" ("ortho doxon"). The only Orthodox answer to Pontius Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (the central moment of all Scripture) is that the truth is not "what," but Who.
This is the definiton for "Dogma" I got from Miriam-Webster Online:
 Main Entry:dog·ma
Pronunciation:\ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta  \-mə-tə\
Etymology:Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date:1638
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

We're using theological terms in a nuanced manner.  Webster may not be as helpful here.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 23, 2009, 04:59:34 PM
The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church. I would probably have disagreements with them on science, but that's really not the point.

What if a previous pastoral policy or teaching is informed by bad science?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 05:43:53 PM
The reason, Heorhij, that I want to know what the Fathers said is that they are witnesses to the faih of the Holy church.

In the question of the Sun orbiting the Earth?

I would probably have disagreements with them on science, but that's really not the point.

Yes it is! We KNOW that this whole idea of the "waste of seed" is RIDICULOUS - because we know some science, some real facts, while they fed on fantasies and ancient Hebrew horror flicks like the story of "Onan."

The Fathers have witnessed the very earliest days of the church, and so I will not join a Church that has changed their teaching. That's why I eliminated Protestantism as a possibility.

I eliminated Protestantism because it is pedestrian, not beautiful, and because Protestants, not having bishops, constantly engage in meaningless, destructive fighting about who would be their best minister and "what do I get from the church." (Unfortunately, I heard this same thing here from American Orthodox converts...) But in the questions (or, rather, "questions" in quotation marks) of whether a man can wear a condom when he and his wife do not want to have their next child right now - I think Protestants are right, and we are ridiculous.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 23, 2009, 06:07:45 PM
Yes it is! We KNOW that this whole idea of the "waste of seed" is RIDICULOUS - because we know some science, some real facts, while they fed on fantasies and ancient Hebrew horror flicks like the story of "Onan."

Heorhij,

Three facts:

(1) "Seed" cannot be wasted.
(2) Nobody owns anyone.
(3) Women can exercise the same amount of intellectual and emotional strength as men.

Absolutely everything that explicitly states or implicitly assumes otherwise needs to be changed accordingly.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 06:23:37 PM
I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

I am fifty-one and a half and my wife is fifty-two, and for us, perhaps, this whole issue will be irrelevant in just a few years. But I really pity next generations of young married couples who will be in some circumstances when they will consider either using the "unnatural" contraception or face poverty or health hazards or even life hazards, and somebody will say to them, look, the Pope said this-and-that, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem said this-and-that, and the Council of Bishops of Ancymphiphia Prempembollidianoas in 391 and the Council of Bishops of Antioch of Brooklyn in 1997 said this-and-that. That's the only reason I participate in threads like this one, not being able to NOT show my contempt of ancient idiotic prejudices that poison lives of good, moral (better than me and more moral than me) faithful members of the Body of Christ.

Over and out, no more posts from me in this thread and no more reading by me of this thread.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Cudgel on May 23, 2009, 06:27:56 PM
I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

I am fifty-one and a half and my wife is fifty-two, and for us, perhaps, this whole issue will be irrelevant in just a few years. But I really pity next generations of young married couples who will be in some circumstances when they will consider either using the "unnatural" contraception or face poverty or health hazards or even life hazards, and somebody will say to them, look, the Pope said this-and-that, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem said this-and-that, and the Council of Bishops of Ancymphiphia Prempembollidianoas in 391 and the Council of Bishops of Antioch of Brooklyn in 1997 said this-and-that. That's the only reason I participate in threads like this one, not being able to NOT show my contempt of ancient idiotic prejudices that poison lives of good, moral (better than me and more moral than me) faithful members of the Body of Christ.

Over and out, no more posts from me in this thread and no more reading by me of this thread.


Thanks for sharing your story, Heorhij, this is why I fight: to prevent this from happening.  They deserve better.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 23, 2009, 06:46:18 PM
I am sorry if I went over the edge. The issue of contraception is very personal to me because on another (Ukrainian) forum, I was foolishly sincere to admit that my wife and I, after having our daughter, used some non-"natural" contraceptive methods in the past. After that I was bombarded with hundreds of quotes from good ol' Fathers and called a sneaky sleazy devil-hypocrite, a cheap servant of Antichrist and what not. My attempt to defend myself saying that after our daughter was born, my wife had three miscarriages that almost killed her, and that we finally decided to not risk her health and life and also to drag ourselves out of poverty and dependence and make our careers - was met with further jeer and throwing of feces.

I am fifty-one and a half and my wife is fifty-two, and for us, perhaps, this whole issue will be irrelevant in just a few years. But I really pity next generations of young married couples who will be in some circumstances when they will consider either using the "unnatural" contraception or face poverty or health hazards or even life hazards, and somebody will say to them, look, the Pope said this-and-that, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem said this-and-that, and the Council of Bishops of Ancymphiphia Prempembollidianoas in 391 and the Council of Bishops of Antioch of Brooklyn in 1997 said this-and-that. That's the only reason I participate in threads like this one, not being able to NOT show my contempt of ancient idiotic prejudices that poison lives of good, moral (better than me and more moral than me) faithful members of the Body of Christ.

Over and out, no more posts from me in this thread and no more reading by me of this thread.s is a per
I know this is a very touchy subject. Don't mean to get personal with anyone, I just thought we were all sharing opinions. In the end it is a spiritual decision made between oneself and his/her spiritual advisor/father.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Heorhij on May 23, 2009, 07:58:49 PM
People, forgive me for calling Protestantism "not beautiful," - I certainly did not mean something like this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR8gc7WFiCc

Cudgel, thank you for the fight. I am sure it's a right one. I just thought that the answer is, we - the Orthodox - are not dogmatic but pastoral/liturgical. If I am wrong and we still are dogmatic, then I don't know what to say.

Sorry for breaking my promise not to read this thread any more - I just wanted to apologize for calling Protestantism "not beautiful" because that's what I really find Protestantism in the USA, perhaps because of my personal very European background, and I just wanted to remind all of us, and myself, of Bach.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Rosehip on May 23, 2009, 08:14:03 PM
I remember a conversation I once happened to overhear between a pastor in my former church and a group of men he was counselling from another (somewhat similar) group. This group of men were totally convinced of the merits of patriarchy and that their wives were absolutely supposed to be bearing children every single year as long as they were able. Now, my former church also placed enormous emphasis on having many children etc., but this pastor told these men that they were very wrong to put such a terrible strain on their wives' bodies. He told them the NT (Peter) says that women are the "weaker vessel" and that a man who truly loves his wife as himself will not selfishly wear her out by placing  her delicate body through years of difficult childbearing. He said more, but I can't remember everything. I was very impressed with this compassionate approach.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: SolEX01 on May 23, 2009, 09:21:50 PM
.... He told them the NT (Peter) says that women are the "weaker vessel" and that a man who truly loves his wife as himself will not selfishly wear her out by placing  her delicate body through years of difficult childbearing. He said more, but I can't remember everything. I was very impressed with this compassionate approach.

I know these comments are opposite to the thread.  To respond to how a husband does not try to wear out his wife by subjecting her to years of childbearing, let's look at examples where women are having repeat multiple pregnancies thanks to modern science....

Women are wearing themselves out as evident by Octomom (14 kids total) and Kate (8 kids total) from Jon & Kate and Eight.

Rather than 22 separate pregnancies, both women produced 22 kids via 6 pregnancies (1 octuplets, 1 sextuplets and 4 sets of twins).  Both moms are now being ridiculed.  First, Octomom and now Kate.

Where is the compassion in both cases?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Rosehip on May 23, 2009, 09:59:56 PM
Good question. I for one do not closely follow such stories. Did either of the two women take fertility drugs? I was under the impression that it is a known fact that doing so often results in multiple births. And as far as "octomom" is concerned, does she even have a husband? I had thought this was some personal notion of her own to have as many children as possible, but I could be wrong. Also, I'm wondering which is harder on a woman's body-to have several all at once or to have 10-14 (as was the case in many of my friends' families) over the course of several years? I must say, from the pictures I've seen of these recent cases, these moms look much better than the mothers of my friends after they've had 14 children.

Also, if it is the mother's choice to have many children, and if her body holds up well, then I can't see why she shouldn't have as many as she can-as long as the family has the means to properly provide for them etc. I think it's kind of selfish to have children if you aren't actually married.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: SolEX01 on May 23, 2009, 10:55:36 PM
Good question. I for one do not closely follow such stories. Did either of the two women take fertility drugs? I was under the impression that it is a known fact that doing so often results in multiple births.

Both women used fertility drugs.

And as far as "octomom" is concerned, does she even have a husband? I had thought this was some personal notion of her own to have as many children as possible, but I could be wrong.

Octomom is single.  The same friend of hers was the "donor" for each "treatment."  Octomom told Dr. Phil that she exercised poor judgment in having so many embryos implanted.

Also, I'm wondering which is harder on a woman's body-to have several all at once or to have 10-14 (as was the case in many of my friends' families) over the course of several years? I must say, from the pictures I've seen of these recent cases, these moms look much better than the mothers of my friends after they've had 14 children.

In the days of 14 single pregnancies, there was no plastic surgery that could tighten stretched bellies.  Today, anything is possible.  Octomom is compared to Angelina Jolie.  As for Kate, she is being demonized in the social magazines like People and US Weekly.  When Jon & Kate agreed to do TV, they received millions from the network.  Apparently, some of those millions affected Kate given she used to live in a trailer park.
 
Also, if it is the mother's choice to have many children, and if her body holds up well, then I can't see why she shouldn't have as many as she can-as long as the family has the means to properly provide for them etc. I think it's kind of selfish to have children if you aren't actually married.

There is a 17 year old new mom from Alaska who's learning the lesson the hard way.   ;)

Both women made the decisions to have multiple children and have to deal with the consequences, whether good or bad.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Pilgrim on May 24, 2009, 01:12:54 AM
I know this is a very touchy subject. Don't mean to get personal with anyone, I just thought we were all sharing opinions. In the end it is a spiritual decision made between oneself and his/her spiritual advisor/father.
[/quote]

Of course its touchy. That shows that it is an issue which cannot be ignored. I hate wasting time, and wouldn't even have started this thread if I didn't think it important.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ChristusDominus on May 24, 2009, 01:34:22 AM

Of course its touchy. That shows that it is an issue which cannot be ignored. I hate wasting time, and wouldn't even have started this thread if I didn't think it important.
Well then, my good man, don't let me get in the way ::)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 01:48:11 AM
To me it's as plain as simple Jane.... if the early Chruch Doctors spoke unanimously againt all forms of birth control, then we should take heed. You can't research their writings without stumbling over their stern objections to this.
THe early Church 'Doctors', e.g. Clement, Augustine, Jerome et alia did not speak unanimously against all forms of birth control.  They spoke out against what the Vatican now calls "Natural Family Planning."
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 02:01:06 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."
WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.

3rd Century
West: Lactantius of North Africa says in 307 [The Divine Institutes 6:23:18 in PL 6:718AB], "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring."

4th Century
East: Bishop St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in [Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2], "[certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption."
WRH:

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Hippo (Doctor of Grace) says in 388 [On the Morals of the Manicheans 18:65]:
This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.
WRH: It is a shame that some people seem to abhor unintentional pregnancy more than fornication, when children are a great blessing from God [Ps 127:3-5] and fornication is an abomination that we must avoid [Tob 4:13] in order to avoid eternal punishment [Gal 5:21].

East: Patriarch St. John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople (Doctor & Holy Hierarch) says in 391 [Homilies on Matthew 28:5],
... in truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization].
6th Century

West: Bishop St. Caesarius of Arles says in 522 [Sermon 1:12],
Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in Hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.
http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/contraception.html
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:11:14 AM
I believe the EP praised Humanae Vitae when it was first promulgated.


Indeed he did.  Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras wrote to the Pope to assure him of his "total agreement" with the encyclical's contents:

"We assure you that we remain close to you, above all
in these recent days when you have taken the good step
of publishing the encyclical Humanae Vitae. We are in total
agreement with you, and wish you all God's help to continue
your mission in the world."

~Patriarch Athenagoras' telegramme to Pope Paul VI, 9 August 1968, reprinted in Towards the Healing of Schism, ed. & trans. E.J. Stormon ,1987.
Wasn't that the same EP who lifted the anathema against those who teach the Filioque?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:30:05 AM
Dear brother Quinault,

Your concise description reinforces my belief of how utterly opposed ABC is to God's Natural Law.

I fail to see how. Is shaving opposed to this law, too?

A good point.  Pierced ears?  Breast implants?  Fertility drugs?  Gastric-bypass surgery?  Chemotherapy drugs?

I find it hard to distinguish where the line between allowed reinforcement and the limit of "God's Natural Law" is sometimes.
I don't see how any of these violates or impedes God's Natural Order.  Shaving? ???  

LOL. St. Clement, one of the favorites for the quote mine for the Vatican on contraception, would point it out to you:
Ok...this may be a silly thing to ask, but what is the significance of wearing beards in Orthodoxy? Is it a clergy only thing, or do most laity in Orthodoxy keep a beard as well? I enjoy wearing a beard, but was just wondering if this is part of Orthodoxy for a significant reason, or is just a discipline that has developed over time. Thanks for any feedback.


“How womanly it is for one who is a man to shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect & to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, & smooth them! For God wished women to be smooth & to rejoice in their locks. But he adorned man like the lions, with a beard, & endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest, a sign of strength & rule.” Clement of Alexandria

'Nuff said.
I've always wondered how much this reflected the philosophical baggage St. Clement brought into the Church with him.
"The mask of Socrates: the image of the intellectual in antiquity" By Paul Zanker
http://books.google.com/books?id=2VxdRS6sCcgC&pg=PA108&dq=stoic+beards+shaving&cd=5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Natural law strikes again.
St. Clement goes on AT LENGTH about shaving violating the "natural order."


Quote
Pierced ears?  If one wanted to use them according to Pagan beliefs, and not for mere decoration, yes.  Breast implants? If used to promote unholy vanity and lack of respect for women, yes.  Fertility drugs? I think that is a good.  What violation can you think of?  Gastric-bypass surgery and chemo-therapy drugs? If it promotes health, how can it be in violation of God's Natural order?  

Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation.

Natural law is one of the things brougt in from pagan influence, i.e. philosophy.  Natural Law as your Vatican uses it to displace revelation from her place of pride is a recent innovation.

Quote
It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving,

Again, St. Clement of Alexandria, one of the germinators of Natural Law in the Church, would vehemently disagree.

Quote
or medicine.  On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose. I guess one's understanding of the purpose of procreation will directly influence how one understands contraception.  What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach is the purpose of procreation?

You are using procreation as an all incompassing synomyn for sex. Every instance of procreation, save two, result from sex, but not evey act of sex results in procreation, as many couples trying to conceive can readily attest.

Quote
Of course, the Catholic Church understands that people will fall into sin (i.e., among other things, violate God's Natural Law), and not always be aligned to God's will and order. That is why she was given the power to forgive sins by Christ.  The Catholic Church helps people in their sinfulness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  That's how the Catholic Church deals with the reality of sin.  She teaches her members the Laws of God.  These are universal and DIVINE laws, and not subject to individual interpretation, even by individual priests or bishops.  The Catholic Church also recognizes certain mitigating factors for these divine and universal laws.  These mitigating factors do not reduce the OBJECTIVE reality of sinfulness for violating these divine laws, but rather reduces or completely takes away the culpability of individuals.  These mitigating factors generally fall under the heading of invincible ignorance.  But, most importantly, if Catholics in their human weakness violate these Laws, then the Catholic Church teaches and demonstrates God's love and mercy through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2010, 02:40:17 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:41:19 AM
Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?
I can't think of any other purpose for which God created sperm except for procreation. So, yes, I believe that condoms, which has for its primary purpose (and even only purpose) the contravening of God's purpose for the male sperm is against God's Natural Law and Order, and therefore inherently evil. 
The sperm cannot distinguish between a condom or a womb during its infertile period.

Since even if a conception occurs, MILLIONS of spermazoa do not fulfill their purpose, and countless have to be wasted to break down the eggs defenses so the one can get in (and if more than one gets in, you have problems), so even a conception, by your defenitions, is therefore inherently evil.

Btw, condoms also  serve the purpose of impeding diseases, something even your Vatican has begun to acknowledge.

Quote
On the other hand, one can surmise from that principle why contraception is inherently wrong.  First we need to consider the purpose of procreation.  According to Catholic teaching, it is FIRST and FOREMOST for the upbringing of souls who will worship God and participate in God's plan for humanity's salvation.  To bring joy to the family and help establish stable societies is only a secondary purpose.

It seems like you are lumping together procreation and sexual intercourse of the married couple. Are these two the same thing?
I distinguish the two (I'm just being faithful to Catholic teaching), and this is evident from the fact that a woman is naturally infertile at certain times. So sexual intercourse CAN be distinguished from procreation.  However, to obstruct procreation in any way is against God's Divine Order. [/quote]

If that were true, then that would include abstinance, which I see you admit

Quote
That is why according to the Catholic teaching, even the use of NFP as contraception is sinful (which requires the healing balm of the Sacrament of Reconciliation).
but the Vatican does not.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:43:00 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibtion all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
and require it during her fertile period.  After all, marriage according to St. Jerome, is just for breeding, preferably of monks and nuns.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:45:44 AM
Dear Gabriel,

I am aware that athiests and others have a purely secular version of Natural Law.  That purely secular interpretation often violates the DIVINE origin and end of God's Natural Law.  I hope and pray people recognize this difference, and for those who want a better understanding, I suggest reading St. Clement of Alexandria, or St. Basil.

Blessings

The Church Fathers are not infallible and are cherry-picked to fit whatever one wants them to say.


Moreover, some of them had a blatanly Gnostic view on sex as something inherently sinful, regardless of marriage. St. John Chrysostomos, for example, plainly wrote in his homilies on Genesis that Adam and Eve certainly never had any bodily intercourse before the Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. What, this sleazy, dirty, horrible thing, with these moans, etc.? Can one even see anything HOLY in THAT???  :P
That is certainly NOT how St. John characterizes marriage. Quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Contraception
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 02:54:33 AM
Dear brother Heorhij,

Understand that the Church since the beginning has viewed the Natural Law as part of God's plan for salvation. It is considered a violation of God's Natural Law and Order only if it contributes to a frustration of God's plan for salvation.  Thus, though buildings are man-made, they certainly do nothing to frustrate God's plan for salvation.  Neither does shaving, or medicine.

And condoms?
I can't think of any other purpose for which God created sperm except for procreation. So, yes, I believe that condoms, which has for its primary purpose (and even only purpose) the contravening of God's purpose for the male sperm is against God's Natural Law and Order, and therefore inherently evil. 

But is it God's plan or purpose that every single time the husband and the wife have sexual intercourse, they procreate? If it's not, then I do not see any wrong in preventing the sperm from fertilizing the eggs... Just because God made something, it does not necessarily mean that we have no right to kill it - after all, we "kill" millions of epidermis cells on our palms every time we use hand soap...

to obstruct procreation in any way is against God's Divine Order.

Yes, I know that it is, according to the teaching of your church, but it makes absolutely no sense to me. Doesn't the married couple have an ultimate say in when do they want to have children, and when do they NOT want to have children? If not - why?
As stated, it is not God's plan that every single time the husband and the wife have sexual intercourse, they procreate.  As stated, this is evident in how God created the woman, who is infertile most days of the month.  Where we disagree is your conclusion.  You position is, "if it's not, then man and woman should have full freedom to determine when to have kids."  My position (the position of the Catholic Church) is that no man or woman, married or single, ESPECIALLY Christians, can presume to act as if God's laws are not part of their life, in ANY part of their life.  Though some Fathers have had differing views on sexual intercourse (some more extreme than others), it is at least evident that contraception has always been considered by ALL as an instrinsic evil.
No, not evident at all.  Just those extreme ones you mention.  Most had the good sense of seeing it as a pastoral, rather than dogmatic, isssue.

Quote
 What is unanimous from the Fathers must be regarded by us (as Apostolic Christians) as being a divine teaching from God himself, and this is something to which we as Christians must give heed in our sexual relations.  That's my response to why a married couple does NOT have the ultmiate say in matters of bearing children.  The ultimate decision rests with God, and we must give heed to the Church as the voice of God.  We must make our decision - ALL our decisions - based on God's laws, not create our own.
Try putting food on the table and a roof over the head with the same philosophy of letting the ultimate decision rest with God. God helps those who help themselves.  I can't recall where I've seen it recently put, that the position you expouse here makes the married couple passive recipients of creation rather than active participants.

Quote
As far as your example of germs, my response to Gabriel earlier would be relevant.  There is a distinction between the secular version of the Natural Law and the God's divine Natural Law.  Killing germs to protect a human being does not contravene God's plan of salvation per the Natural Law.  However, killing sperm or ova, or even preventing their God-ordained purpose in view of God's plan of salvation, does.

Then by natural law we must marry every woman off as soon as she ovulates.  Don't know what we will do with the boys, with all that waste of spermazoa in even EVERY success intercourse. Of course, we will have to force the monks and nuns to marry: after all, they are wasting all those gametes not bearing children.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 11:32:54 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 11:41:11 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
With any form of contraception, including sterilitztion, besides abstinence conception can take place.  The egg is only viable for 2 days.  All other days are infertile. The issue is finding those two days.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 11:43:39 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
With any form of contraception, including sterilitztion, besides abstinence conception can take place.  The egg is only viable for 2 days.  All other days are infertile. The issue is finding those two days.

But, in all those forms, you have changed the sex act. NFP is the same act, just timed during "less" fertile periods.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 11:53:00 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
With any form of contraception, including sterilitztion, besides abstinence conception can take place.  The egg is only viable for 2 days.  All other days are infertile. The issue is finding those two days.

But, in all those forms, you have changed the sex act.


No, it's the same act.  It's adultery, for instance, if you sleep with someone else than your spouse, even if you use a condom.  With the IUD, the pill, sterilization (the first being immoral, the second questionable, and the third being moral only in limited circumstances IMHO) there is no difference in the sex act itself at all from "unprotected" sex.

Quote
NFP is the same act, just timed during "less" fertile periods.

With the high dose pill, sterilization etc. it is the same act, just making it that much less fertile.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 12:23:14 PM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
With any form of contraception, including sterilitztion, besides abstinence conception can take place.  The egg is only viable for 2 days.  All other days are infertile. The issue is finding those two days.

But, in all those forms, you have changed the sex act.


No, it's the same act.  It's adultery, for instance, if you sleep with someone else than your spouse, even if you use a condom.  With the IUD, the pill, sterilization (the first being immoral, the second questionable, and the third being moral only in limited circumstances IMHO) there is no difference in the sex act itself at all from "unprotected" sex.

I didn't say it was a different act, I said it is "changed".

Adultery is irrelevant and a different sin altogether.

Quote
NFP is the same act, just timed during "less" fertile periods.

With the high dose pill, sterilization etc. it is the same act, just making it that much less fertile.

And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2010, 01:10:39 PM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
It's not contraception, since you are really placing no barriers in the way to stop that possibility of conceiving a child.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2010, 05:01:25 PM

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.

The Catholic "Couple to Couple League" which promotes NFP in the States and in other countries offers these statistics as part of its programme to induce Catholics to use NFP...

1.  NFP has a 1% failure rate (i.e., the wife conceives when a pregnancy is not wanted)

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

In other words, it is pushing what Catholics call "the contraceptive mentality"  - the NFP method is more effective in preventing pregnancy!  This is obviously the truth since many Catholic families have less children than their non-Catholic neighbours!!!


Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2010, 05:05:35 PM

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.

The Catholic "Couple to Couple League" which promotes NFP in the States and in other countries offers these statistics as part of its programme to induce Catholics to use NFP...

1.  NFP has a 1% failure rate (i.e., the wife conceives when a pregnancy is not wanted)

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

In other words, it is pushing what Catholics call "the contraceptive mentality"  - the NFP method is more effective in preventing pregnancy!  This is obviously the truth since many Catholic families have less children than their non-Catholic neighbours!!!



How is NFP preventing conception?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2010, 05:20:25 PM

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.

The Catholic "Couple to Couple League" which promotes NFP in the States and in other countries offers these statistics as part of its programme to induce Catholics to use NFP...

1.  NFP has a 1% failure rate (i.e., the wife conceives when a pregnancy is not wanted)

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

In other words, it is pushing what Catholics call "the contraceptive mentality"  - the NFP method is more effective in preventing pregnancy!  This is obviously the truth since many Catholic families have less children than their non-Catholic neighbours!!!



How is NFP preventing conception?

The Couple to Couple League which is staunchly Catholic, says that NFP fails to prevent conception in only 1% of its use.   I bow to the experts.

One can also point to the fact that in many European cities the Muslim birthrate is greater than the Catholic birthrate.  Obviously the Catholic use of NFP is being very successful in preventing conception.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 05:30:26 PM
The Catholic "Couple to Couple League" which promotes NFP in the States and in other countries offers these statistics as part of its programme to induce Catholics to use NFP...

1.  NFP has a 1% failure rate (i.e., the wife conceives when a pregnancy is not wanted)

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

In other words, it is pushing what Catholics call "the contraceptive mentality"  - the NFP method is more effective in preventing pregnancy!  This is obviously the truth since many Catholic families have less children than their non-Catholic neighbours!!!
How is NFP preventing conception?

The Couple to Couple League which is staunchly Catholic, says that NFP fails to prevent conception in only 1% of its use.   I bow to the experts.

I would argue a use of terminology. Contraception "prevents" pregnancy, but NFP "avoids/decreases chance of" pregnancy.

One can also point to the fact that in many European cities the Muslim birthrate is greater than the Catholic birthrate.  Obviously the Catholic use of NFP is being very successful in preventing conception.

I don't think this is relevant. Birthrate in Europe is largely due to secular desires, and not focused on family. If the Catholic is faithful enough to use NFP instead of contraceptives, they are also more likely to have a higher birth rate.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 06, 2010, 05:36:14 PM

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.

The Catholic "Couple to Couple League" which promotes NFP in the States and in other countries offers these statistics as part of its programme to induce Catholics to use NFP...

1.  NFP has a 1% failure rate (i.e., the wife conceives when a pregnancy is not wanted)

2,  Condoms have a 7% failure rate.

In other words, it is pushing what Catholics call "the contraceptive mentality"  - the NFP method is more effective in preventing pregnancy!  This is obviously the truth since many Catholic families have less children than their non-Catholic neighbours!!!



How is NFP preventing conception?

The Couple to Couple League which is staunchly Catholic, says that NFP fails to prevent conception in only 1% of its use.   I bow to the experts.

One can also point to the fact that in many European cities the Muslim birthrate is greater than the Catholic birthrate.  Obviously the Catholic use of NFP is being very successful in preventing conception.
I just don't see it as actively preventing conception, maybe I need to think that out a bit so I can express it better.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 06:16:06 PM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
With any form of contraception, including sterilitztion, besides abstinence conception can take place.  The egg is only viable for 2 days.  All other days are infertile. The issue is finding those two days.

But, in all those forms, you have changed the sex act.


No, it's the same act.  It's adultery, for instance, if you sleep with someone else than your spouse, even if you use a condom.  With the IUD, the pill, sterilization (the first being immoral, the second questionable, and the third being moral only in limited circumstances IMHO) there is no difference in the sex act itself at all from "unprotected" sex.

I didn't say it was a different act, I said it is "changed".

Adultery is irrelevant and a different sin altogether.

Quote
NFP is the same act, just timed during "less" fertile periods.

With the high dose pill, sterilization etc. it is the same act, just making it that much less fertile.

And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Men do that with a viagra pill (btw, I vehemently disagree with Fr. Josiah Trenham on this issue: there is nothing sinful about using viagra in an of itself, and he seems a bit confused in any case over what viagra is for).

I use an inhaler to physically change my natural state to meet my needs, i.e. breathing.

Btw, the pill is often used to make a woman's irregular cycle regular, i.e. the natural state to meet whatever needs she has for that. (Elijahmariah will love this one: Muslim women often use the pill to prevent their periods from coming during Ramadan, as shari'ah forbids them from fasting while menstruating.  They can, however, have sex and eat during the night).

Engaging in intercourse during the infertile period rather than the fertile period changes the sex act, as you say.  During so when you are trying to conceive versus doing so when you are trying not to conceive, are very different.  (In fact, no two sex acts are entirely alike. If they are, that brings up other problems). Intercourse during the infertile period resembles intercourse with a condom more than it resembles intercourse during the fertilfe period trying to conceive.

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 06:21:13 PM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.

There is no such thing as "infertile" periods in the woman's cycle. There are only "less fertile". Therefore, NFP is taking advantage of the "less fertile" with full realization that conception can, and sometimes does, take place.
It's not contraception, since you are really placing no barriers in the way to stop that possibility of conceiving a child.
LOL. Sure you are, putting space between the genitals of the couple is the only 100% effective barrier to stop the possibility of conceiving a child.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 06:23:40 PM
And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Men do that with a viagra pill (btw, I vehemently disagree with Fr. Josiah Trenham on this issue: there is nothing sinful about using viagra in an of itself, and he seems a bit confused in any case over what viagra is for).

I use an inhaler to physically change my natural state to meet my needs, i.e. breathing.

Btw, the pill is often used to make a woman's irregular cycle regular, i.e. the natural state to meet whatever needs she has for that. (Elijahmariah will love this one: Muslim women often use the pill to prevent their periods from coming during Ramadan, as shari'ah forbids them from fasting while menstruating.  They can, however, have sex and eat during the night).

But these are used for enhancing life or promoting life, not preventing or destroying life.

Engaging in intercourse during the infertile period rather than the fertile period changes the sex act, as you say.  During so when you are trying to conceive versus doing so when you are trying not to conceive, are very different.  (In fact, no two sex acts are entirely alike. If they are, that brings up other problems). Intercourse during the infertile period resembles intercourse with a condom more than it resembles intercourse during the fertilfe period trying to conceive.

Again, it's not just about "chances". The intercourse is unchanged, except for the timing of the fertility likelyhood.

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.

I don't think it's apples to oranges, though. We're talking about prevention and avoidance of pregnancy and how the two aren't moral equally.

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 06:28:01 PM
If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

Prevention includes 'preventing sperm from reaching womb'(condoms, withdrawl, etc), 'preventing implantation of egg', 'preventing release of egg', 'preventing sperm life' (spermicides), etc.

Avoidance includes 'abstinence', 'celibacy', 'rhythm method/NFP, etc.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 06, 2010, 06:44:52 PM

You're changing the goal posts.  The quotes on which you asked us to comment from Clement of Alexandria are not about "preventing" and "avoiding" - they are about wasting seed.  And that is exactly the intention of an NFP couple when they have sex during an infertile period and plan not to conceive a child or to "space" their children.  The NFP couple are in mortal sin, according to the Catholic commentary for the Clement quotes.  They have the intention of wasting the husband's seed.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 06:58:05 PM
And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Men do that with a viagra pill (btw, I vehemently disagree with Fr. Josiah Trenham on this issue: there is nothing sinful about using viagra in an of itself, and he seems a bit confused in any case over what viagra is for).

I use an inhaler to physically change my natural state to meet my needs, i.e. breathing.

Btw, the pill is often used to make a woman's irregular cycle regular, i.e. the natural state to meet whatever needs she has for that. (Elijahmariah will love this one: Muslim women often use the pill to prevent their periods from coming during Ramadan, as shari'ah forbids them from fasting while menstruating.  They can, however, have sex and eat during the night).

But these are used for enhancing life or promoting life, not preventing or destroying life.

So is not engaging in intercourse preventing and wasting (and hence destroying) life: an egg, if not fertilized, deteriates and is expelled; spermazoa, if not ejaculated, deteriate and are broken down and absorbed. All that "life" down the drain. Of course, a lot of "life" is wasted in even a conception: the egg prevents all but one spermazoa to enter, but that one depends on all his brothers being destroyed trying, leaving an opening for him to get into the egg.

Engaging in intercourse during the infertile period rather than the fertile period changes the sex act, as you say.  During so when you are trying to conceive versus doing so when you are trying not to conceive, are very different.  (In fact, no two sex acts are entirely alike. If they are, that brings up other problems). Intercourse during the infertile period resembles intercourse with a condom more than it resembles intercourse during the fertilfe period trying to conceive.

Again, it's not just about "chances". The intercourse is unchanged, except for the timing of the fertility likelyhood.
And the timing can be determined by the changes in the woman's body, which make the chance from optimal to nil.

Btw, there are methods to try to choose the sex of a child, based on manipulating timing and the changes during the cycle, and changing the acidicy/basicity.  I.e. changes.  All the Vatican's moral theologians holding to HV who have examined that last point, have expressed no objection.

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.

I don't think it's apples to oranges, though. We're talking about prevention and avoidance of pregnancy and how the two aren't moral equally.

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Prevention of pregnancy=avoidance of pregnancy.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 06:59:11 PM

You're changing the goal posts.  The quotes on which you asked us to comment from Clement of Alexandria are not about "preventing" and "avoiding" - they are about wasting seed.  And that is exactly the intention of an NFP couple when they have sex during an infertile period and plan not to conceive a child or to "space" their children.  The NFP couple are in mortal sin, according to the Catholic commentary for the Clement quotes.  They have the intention of wasting the husband's seed.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 07:00:43 PM
If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

Prevention includes 'preventing sperm from reaching womb'(condoms, withdrawl, etc), 'preventing implantation of egg', 'preventing release of egg', 'preventing sperm life' (spermicides), etc.

Avoidance includes 'abstinence', 'celibacy', 'rhythm method/NFP, etc.
"Preventing implantation of the egg" is something else, i.e. abortion.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 07:01:56 PM

You're changing the goal posts.  The quotes on which you asked us to comment from Clement of Alexandria are not about "preventing" and "avoiding" - they are about wasting seed.  And that is exactly the intention of an NFP couple when they have sex during an infertile period and plan not to conceive a child or to "space" their children.  The NFP couple are in mortal sin, according to the Catholic commentary for the Clement quotes.  They have the intention of wasting the husband's seed.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
but those (celibate) fathers that you cited as authorities did not see it that way.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 07:04:27 PM
And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Men do that with a viagra pill (btw, I vehemently disagree with Fr. Josiah Trenham on this issue: there is nothing sinful about using viagra in an of itself, and he seems a bit confused in any case over what viagra is for).

I use an inhaler to physically change my natural state to meet my needs, i.e. breathing.

Btw, the pill is often used to make a woman's irregular cycle regular, i.e. the natural state to meet whatever needs she has for that. (Elijahmariah will love this one: Muslim women often use the pill to prevent their periods from coming during Ramadan, as shari'ah forbids them from fasting while menstruating.  They can, however, have sex and eat during the night).

But these are used for enhancing life or promoting life, not preventing or destroying life.

So is not engaging in intercourse preventing and wasting (and hence destroying) life: an egg, if not fertilized, deteriates and is expelled; spermazoa, if not ejaculated, deteriate and are broken down and absorbed. All that "life" down the drain. Of course, a lot of "life" is wasted in even a conception: the egg prevents all but one spermazoa to enter, but that one depends on all his brothers being destroyed trying, leaving an opening for him to get into the egg.

None of this is within the control of the couple, nor outside the design of human reproduction.

Engaging in intercourse during the infertile period rather than the fertile period changes the sex act, as you say.  During so when you are trying to conceive versus doing so when you are trying not to conceive, are very different.  (In fact, no two sex acts are entirely alike. If they are, that brings up other problems). Intercourse during the infertile period resembles intercourse with a condom more than it resembles intercourse during the fertilfe period trying to conceive.

Again, it's not just about "chances". The intercourse is unchanged, except for the timing of the fertility likelyhood.
And the timing can be determined by the changes in the woman's body, which make the chance from optimal to nil.

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Btw, there are methods to try to choose the sex of a child, based on manipulating timing and the changes during the cycle, and changing the acidicy/basicity.  I.e. changes.  All the Vatican's moral theologians holding to HV who have examined that last point, have expressed no objection.

Trying to choose the sex based on timing, could be construed as wrong... but I doubt it, because it is neither certain, nor destructive to life or the life process.

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.

I don't think it's apples to oranges, though. We're talking about prevention and avoidance of pregnancy and how the two aren't moral equally.

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Prevention of pregnancy=avoidance of pregnancy.

Disagree. You haven't proved them equal, yet.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 07:05:07 PM
If you'll understand, I see a distinction between "prevention" and "avoiding". And so, I'm arguing that prevention is morally wrong, while avoiding is not.

Prevention includes 'preventing sperm from reaching womb'(condoms, withdrawl, etc), 'preventing implantation of egg', 'preventing release of egg', 'preventing sperm life' (spermicides), etc.

Avoidance includes 'abstinence', 'celibacy', 'rhythm method/NFP, etc.
"Preventing implantation of the egg" is something else, i.e. abortion.

I agree, however "the pill" is a contraceptive and does just this.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 06, 2010, 07:06:18 PM

You're changing the goal posts.  The quotes on which you asked us to comment from Clement of Alexandria are not about "preventing" and "avoiding" - they are about wasting seed.  And that is exactly the intention of an NFP couple when they have sex during an infertile period and plan not to conceive a child or to "space" their children.  The NFP couple are in mortal sin, according to the Catholic commentary for the Clement quotes.  They have the intention of wasting the husband's seed.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
but those (celibate) fathers that you cited as authorities did not see it that way.

Did they not? In their limited understanding of the reproductive processes of modern (2d century) science?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 07:15:31 PM

You're changing the goal posts.  The quotes on which you asked us to comment from Clement of Alexandria are not about "preventing" and "avoiding" - they are about wasting seed.  And that is exactly the intention of an NFP couple when they have sex during an infertile period and plan not to conceive a child or to "space" their children.  The NFP couple are in mortal sin, according to the Catholic commentary for the Clement quotes.  They have the intention of wasting the husband's seed.

Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.


I don't see a contradiction.

I see 'wasting the seed' as within the bounds of prevention.
but those (celibate) fathers that you cited as authorities did not see it that way.

Did they not? In their limited understanding of the reproductive processes of modern (2d century) science?
No, as I've already pointed out:
The distinction between artificial birth control and natural birth control is continence.  It is an ascetic practice that is not unfamiliar to chaste single people including religious, nuns, priests and brothers.  

The stricture not to use artificial birth control only applies to those times when one is actually engaging conjugally.  The moral teaching does NOT insist on sex on demand in a marriage, for either the man or the woman.

An irrelevant detail thrown in to paint other non-abortifacient methods in a dark light. And also incorrect: the penitentiary has some discussion about a spouse's insistence, enshrined in that romantic term "marital debt" of which St. Jerome is fond. And he is clear, a husband who ejaculates in his wife's womb when it cannot conceive, is as guilty of wasting seed "the despicable crime of Onanism" as the husband who spills his seed outside his wife's womb when she can conceive, as St. Clement states
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.

"To outrage nature"="frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will" (HV).

NEW TOPIC: given the advances in the rhythm method, and the explicitely states beliefs of the vast majority of the Fathers who dared to express opinions on this matter, why is it not incumbant on couples to ascertain the fertile period and restrict intercourse to only that period of time.  If you want continence and "asceticism," that would give you much more than what the Vatican offers as NFP

The concept of sexual pleasure in the Catholic moral tradition By Shaji George Kochuthara
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFbjyIn6j4oC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Clement+Alexandria+outrage+nature&source=bl&ots=vD8iy14csh&sig=_9D3f87h0vxqrXdsGGLUu9RYm0A&hl=en&ei=X0XbTIrLNtyrnAez2p0W&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clement%20Alexandria%20outrage%20nature&f=false
shows that many (but not all, there were exceptions) of those Fathers that HV claims as its basis basically view marriage like animal husbandry, an ironic mix as they both condemn those who enjoy intercourse as animals while as the same time calling us to imitate animals in breeding only during estris, demanding that the image and likeness of God overcome his nature and imitate angels while demanding that "we should take nature as our instructor," i.e. natural law (the book also shows that these Fathers adopted pagan Stoicism as the basis of their views). St. Clement says "a man who marries for the sake of begeting children [which he states is the only reason to marry] must practice continence so that it is not desire that he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love [he insists that there's an opposition of desire and love, based on Stoicism], so that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will." In other words, marital embrace should resemble an artifical insemination, ironic as I am sure that St. Clement would join HV in condemning that, as both are inconsistent in the same way.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 07:50:49 PM
And with a pill, or whatever, you've physically changed the natural state to meet your needs.
Men do that with a viagra pill (btw, I vehemently disagree with Fr. Josiah Trenham on this issue: there is nothing sinful about using viagra in an of itself, and he seems a bit confused in any case over what viagra is for).

I use an inhaler to physically change my natural state to meet my needs, i.e. breathing.

Btw, the pill is often used to make a woman's irregular cycle regular, i.e. the natural state to meet whatever needs she has for that. (Elijahmariah will love this one: Muslim women often use the pill to prevent their periods from coming during Ramadan, as shari'ah forbids them from fasting while menstruating.  They can, however, have sex and eat during the night).

But these are used for enhancing life or promoting life, not preventing or destroying life.

So is not engaging in intercourse preventing and wasting (and hence destroying) life: an egg, if not fertilized, deteriates and is expelled; spermazoa, if not ejaculated, deteriate and are broken down and absorbed. All that "life" down the drain. Of course, a lot of "life" is wasted in even a conception: the egg prevents all but one spermazoa to enter, but that one depends on all his brothers being destroyed trying, leaving an opening for him to get into the egg.

None of this is within the control of the couple, nor outside the design of human reproduction.

It is certainly within the control of the woman: your natural law would require that she be married off or at least ingage in intercourse so that her eggs are not wasted. Can't do much for the man, but then your natural law would have to explain the vital difference between wasting 60,000,000 spermazoa and wasting 59,000,000

Engaging in intercourse during the infertile period rather than the fertile period changes the sex act, as you say.  During so when you are trying to conceive versus doing so when you are trying not to conceive, are very different.  (In fact, no two sex acts are entirely alike. If they are, that brings up other problems). Intercourse during the infertile period resembles intercourse with a condom more than it resembles intercourse during the fertilfe period trying to conceive.

Again, it's not just about "chances". The intercourse is unchanged, except for the timing of the fertility likelyhood.
And the timing can be determined by the changes in the woman's body, which make the chance from optimal to nil.

But it is still avoiding vs prevention.
Avoiding is prevention. Prevention is avoiding.

Btw, there are methods to try to choose the sex of a child, based on manipulating timing and the changes during the cycle, and changing the acidicy/basicity.  I.e. changes.  All the Vatican's moral theologians holding to HV who have examined that last point, have expressed no objection.

Trying to choose the sex based on timing, could be construed as wrong... but I doubt it, because it is neither certain, nor destructive to life or the life process.
Besides the question of certainty, that's been their argument.

Not to be indelicate, but to stop comparing apples and oranges (as very few people have ever expressed a fondness for condoms, no matter how much they use them), compare intercourse with a lubricant (or do you think that is not allowed?) and that with a lubricant with a spermicide.

I don't think it's apples to oranges, though. We're talking about prevention and avoidance of pregnancy and how the two aren't moral equally.

Lubricants don't have anything to do with prevention or avoiding pregnancy (unless it's spermicidal).
Prevention of pregnancy=avoidance of pregnancy.
Disagree. You haven't proved them equal, yet.
Same ends, same results, same intention.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 06, 2010, 08:12:59 PM
On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

Quote
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose.  The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state.
http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/STATEMENTONPASSAGEOFSB1716.pdf
The counterpart in NJ issued this:
Quote
Thoughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage has its roots in natural law, which transcends all man made law.  Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a natural, universal human institution that unites mothers and fathes in the work of childbearing and family life.
http://www.rcan.org/famlife/0809ssu.pdf

(I'm not here to argue the legislation, but will in the private fora. Here I am focused on is characterized as the origin of marriage).

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2010, 01:16:45 AM
On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

Quote
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose.  The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state.
http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/STATEMENTONPASSAGEOFSB1716.pdf
The counterpart in NJ issued this:
Quote
Thoughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage has its roots in natural law, which transcends all man made law.  Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a natural, universal human institution that unites mothers and fathes in the work of childbearing and family life.
http://www.rcan.org/famlife/0809ssu.pdf

(I'm not here to argue the legislation, but will in the private fora. Here I am focused on is characterized as the origin of marriage).

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

Are those bee's wings you are wearing, Mr. Ia'sy?

Ohhhh.... Your condom!!!.... :angel: :angel:...I'm so sorry!!...And that would be the image of what part of God?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 01:59:58 AM
[
Quote
2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

I don't want to be indelicate but is this correct Catholic teaching  posted by another forum member.  All outercourse sexual activity is prohibited and only intercourse activity is allowed.

Does this mean Catholics are prohibited from what we could loosely call any forms of foreplay?  The Catholic commentary is quite specific - all types of outercourse are impermissible.   
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 02:41:21 AM
On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

Quote
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose.  The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state.
http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/STATEMENTONPASSAGEOFSB1716.pdf
The counterpart in NJ issued this:
Quote
Thoughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage has its roots in natural law, which transcends all man made law.  Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a natural, universal human institution that unites mothers and fathes in the work of childbearing and family life.
http://www.rcan.org/famlife/0809ssu.pdf

(I'm not here to argue the legislation, but will in the private fora. Here I am focused on is characterized as the origin of marriage).

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

Are those bee's wings you are wearing, Mr. Ia'sy?

Ohhhh.... Your condom!!!.... :angel: :angel:...I'm so sorry!!...And that would be the image of what part of God?

He says man is created in the image of God, not his clothing.

And the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn't have parts. Don't know about the deity you worship. Placing yourself among Toll Booths, you're not going to find Truth there.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 02:47:35 AM
On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

Quote
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose.  The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state.
http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/STATEMENTONPASSAGEOFSB1716.pdf
The counterpart in NJ issued this:
Quote
Thoughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage has its roots in natural law, which transcends all man made law.  Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a natural, universal human institution that unites mothers and fathes in the work of childbearing and family life.
http://www.rcan.org/famlife/0809ssu.pdf

(I'm not here to argue the legislation, but will in the private fora. Here I am focused on is characterized as the origin of marriage).

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

Are those bee's wings you are wearing, Mr. Ia'sy?

Ohhhh.... Your condom!!!.... :angel: :angel:...I'm so sorry!!...And that would be the image of what part of God?

The only part I can think of is the Sacred Prepuce which is preserved in some Catholic church in Europe.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 05:48:15 PM
On the issue of natural law, the "Catholic Coferance of Illinois" issued a statement

Quote
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose.  The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state.
http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/STATEMENTONPASSAGEOFSB1716.pdf
The counterpart in NJ issued this:
Quote
Thoughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and woman.  Marriage has its roots in natural law, which transcends all man made law.  Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a natural, universal human institution that unites mothers and fathes in the work of childbearing and family life.
http://www.rcan.org/famlife/0809ssu.pdf

(I'm not here to argue the legislation, but will in the private fora. Here I am focused on is characterized as the origin of marriage).

Basically, the Vatican sees marriage as an instituion conformed to human nature and therefore based on natural law.  For Orthodoxy, marriage is the embodiment of the image and likeness that Revelation tells us is the essence of man, which nature reflects.

Crossing paths on the way through the Toll Booths:

Are those bee's wings you are wearing, Mr. Ia'sy?

Ohhhh.... Your condom!!!.... :angel: :angel:...I'm so sorry!!...And that would be the image of what part of God?

The only part I can think of is the Sacred Prepuce which is preserved in some Catholic church in Europe.
I still don't get it: maybe this is what EM was thinking of
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images-2/condom-being-inflated-over-mans-head.jpg
as most people I figure do not wear condoms on their back.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Fr. George on December 07, 2010, 06:15:18 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 07:00:09 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Alpo on December 07, 2010, 07:05:13 PM
St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state

Not that I doubt what you are saying but do you happen to remember where St. Augustine said that?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 07:32:09 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.

EDIT: I'm sure you'll find some reason why that's related to some heresy, too, and then subsequently equate similar reasoning with dependency.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 07:55:04 PM
Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 08:25:56 PM
Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong. If I continue the debate, it is because I'm not yet convinced.

Those quotes were not my own, as can be easily seen. I can't, and still can't, find primary sources for context, which irks me to no end.

(2) is particularly annoying, as it would seem presumes both (1) intent to "harm" and (2) a true belief that RC is erroneous on my part.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 08:48:06 PM
Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 08:50:55 PM
Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799

Just saw that. I've been thinking about what you've said. Just don't have anything intelligent to say, yet.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 09:50:04 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)
Quote
Chapter 25.— Of Sarah's Handmaid, Hagar, Whom She Herself Wished to Be Abraham's Concubine.
And here follow the times of Abraham's sons, the one by Hagar the bond maid, the other by Sarah the free woman, about whom we have already spoken in the previous book. As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be branded as guilty concerning this concubine, for he used her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of lust; and not to insult, but rather to obey his wife, who supposed it would be solace of her barrenness if she could make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply the defect of her own nature, and by that law of which the apostle says, Likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife, 1 Corinthians 7:4 could, as a wife, make use of him for childbearing by another, when she could not do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust, no filthy lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband by the wife for the sake of progeny, and is received by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking, not guilty excess, but natural fruit. And when the pregnant bond woman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her husband, even then Abraham showed that he was not a slavish lover, but a free begetter of children, and that in using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife, and had gratified her will and not his own—had received her without seeking, had gone in to her without being attached, had impregnated without loving her—for he says, Behold your maid is in your hands: do to her as it pleases you; Genesis 16:6 a man able to use women as a man should—his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm

That Humanae Vitae does not cite patristics is not always a bad thing.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 09:56:26 PM
Addiction to syllogism? It's a method to convey meaning to another, not an end unto itself. Without it, you're can be trapped in a "nuh uh" vs "uh huh" word match.  Wait, we still do that here, even with it. I guess some people reject deductive reasoning.


Deductive reasoning can be heavily compromised by the inadequate knowledge of the person using it.  It can also be used thoroughly dishonestly by the person willing to suppress other relevant factors.

We have just seem this with your quotes from Saint John Chrysostom in the papacy thread.  What you deduced from those quotes and what you were asking us to deduce from them was compromised by either 1) your lack of knowledge of Chrysostom's words on the other Apostles or 2) you wanted to lead us astray and into the erroneous understandings of Roman Catholicism?

Or (3) an open invitation to prove me wrong.

When I make statements on here, I want you to prove me wrong.
.

I did that by giving you what Saint John Chrysostom wrote about the holy Apostle John.  He is just as effusive about him as he is about Saint Peter.

See message 53
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28946.msg503799/topicseen.html#msg503799

Just saw that. I've been thinking about what you've said. Just don't have anything intelligent to say, yet.


Many times you come across as representing a pro-Roman position.  But I now see from your message 206 that in fact you are wanting the Orthodox to disprove that position.  May we succeed!  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 09:56:36 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 10:01:39 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2010, 10:01:50 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Well gracious goodness...that should tell you something.  :)

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.  And IF one has a contraceptive outlook, let it be for spacing children, not avoiding them, and let it be for the health of one partner or the other or the salvation of a soul.

All the rest of the squirming on the part of some Orthodox over this topic is irrelevant. 

And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2010, 10:01:52 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 10:08:30 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Well gracious goodness...that should tell you something.  :)

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.
OK. Withdrawal.
Quote
  And IF one has a contraceptive outlook, let it be for spacing children, not avoiding them, and let it be for the health of one partner or the other or the salvation of a soul.

All the rest of the squirming on the part of some Orthodox over this topic is irrelevant.


We aren't the ones squirming.

Quote
And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.
Weren't you just dismissing one of the Vatican's moral theologians for being a dissident?  Promonting the rhythm method of contraception is one thing, demanding it is quite another.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 10:10:28 PM

And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 10:17:42 PM

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.  


I'd give that a Yes and a No!  It's verging on deception.  As we both of us know your Church allows the use of even the most sinful and murderous kinds of artificial contraception if either the husband or the wife insists on it.  The other spouse, even though a Catholic, has the blessing of your Church to acquiesce and to participate in the use of even abortifacients.

You know this, I know this.  It is in the Vademecum published by the Vatican for confessors.  
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 10:18:05 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 10:18:34 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?

Against surrogate mothers.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 10:19:07 PM

And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.


Which one is that, Father?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 10:20:50 PM

And there is clear proof that some Orthodox clergy do get it because they are promoting NFP.


We have heard of these rare birds, Fathers Josiah Trenham (Antioch), John Schroedel (OCA), Patrick Reardon (Antioch.)

No, I exaggerate.  One of them does not promote NFP but he condemns it as grossly sinful.

Sinful?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 07, 2010, 10:23:08 PM
Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC. ABC violates natural law because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction. NFP does no such thing. There are supposed to be only certain days during the month when woman has a substantial probability of getting pregnant. There are supposed to be days when that probability is extremely low. This is written into the nature of the female body. This is a real and substantial difference. And that real difference leads to practical results in the building of virtue. One method (NFP) teaches a person self control, the other (ABC) teaches a person to satisfy his or her passions on demand.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 10:42:44 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?


Against surrogate mothers.
It is adultery, because it involves a third party (besides the Church) in the union of one flesh of the couple. Hence the canons etc. against concubinage and surrogate fathers (ancient Sparta had mandated that, so it wasn't new), are in full force.

Btw, this is not my own teaching
Quote
Tenth All American Council-On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life:The Procreation of Children  
Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19
Quote
XII. 4. New biomedical methods make it possible in many cases to overcome the infirmity of infertility. At the same time, the growing technological interference in the conception of human life presents a threat to the spiritual integrity and physical health of a person. A threat comes also for interpersonal relations on which the community has been built from of old. The development of the above-mentioned technologies has brought about the ideology of the so-called reproductive rights, widely propagated today on both national and international levels. This ideological system assumes that the sexual and social self-fulfilment of a person has a priority over concern for the future of a child, the spiritual and physical health of society and its moral sustainability. There is a growing attitude to the human life as a product which can be chosen according to one's own inclinations and which can be disposed of along with material goods.

In the prayers of the marriage celebration, the Orthodox Church expresses the hope that childbirth, while being a desired fruit of lawful marriage, is not its only purpose. Along with «a fruit of the womb to profit», the Church asks for the gift of enduring love, chastity and «the harmony of the souls and bodies». Therefore, the Church cannot regard as morally justified the ways to childbirth disagreeable with the design of the Creator of life. If a husband or a wife is sterile and the therapeutic and surgical methods of infertility treatment do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept childlessness as a special calling in life. In these cases, pastoral counsel should consider the adoption of a child by the spouses' mutual consent. Among the admissible means of medical aid may be an artificial insemination by the husband's germ cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations.

However, manipulations involved in the donation of germ cells do violate the integrity of a person and the unique nature of marital relations by allowing of a third party to interfere. In addition, this practice encourages the irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, admittedly free from any commitment to those who are «flesh of the flesh» of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that a child has, in addition to the «social» parents, the so-called biological ones. «Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother's feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis. Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extracorporal fertilisation involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of «spare» embryos. It is on the recognition of the human dignity even in an embryo that the moral assessment of abortion by the Church is based (see, XII. 2).

The insemination of single women with the use of donor germ cells or the realisation of the «reproductive rights» of single men and persons with the so-called non-standard sexual orientation deprive the future child of the right to have mother and father. The use of reproductive methods outside the context of the God-blessed family has become a form of theomachism carried out under the pretext of the protection of the individual's autonomy and wrongly-understood individual freedom.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

My own view (and I seem to be in opposition to my own pastor on this, so it is my own views) that a possible exception would be the surrogates for "snow flake adoptions," frozen fetuses abandoned by their parents (why the Orthodox Church forbids this) who are adopted and born by their adoptive mother. The reason is that the fetuses, not taken out of frozen suspension, will degenerate i.e. die.  An argument may be made for a woman willing to bear them but not able to adopt them, do to the emmient death, but I'm not as sure on that.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC.


The Catholic commentary provided by Azurestone to the two quotes from the teaching of Saint Clement of Alexandria, affirm that it is a mortal sin to waste semen.  The intention of a Catholic couple using NFP to enjoy sex in the non fertile period is to waste the husband's semen without conceiving a child. NFP is mortally sinful when used in this way, and let's face it this is the major use of NFP by Roman Catholics - to avoid conceiving or to "space" children.   NFP involves wasting gallons of semen.

Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 10:53:00 PM
St. Augustine has some interesting thoughts on the topic of surrogate motherhood (something the Vatican now forbids, as does the Orthodox)

I didn't realize that. What is the reasoning?
On what?


Against surrogate mothers.
It is adultery, because it involves a third party (besides the Church) in the union of one flesh of the couple. Hence the canons etc. against concubinage and surrogate fathers (ancient Sparta had mandated that, so it wasn't new), are in full force.

Btw, this is not my own teaching
Quote
Tenth All American Council-On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life:The Procreation of Children  
Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19
Quote
XII. 4. New biomedical methods make it possible in many cases to overcome the infirmity of infertility. At the same time, the growing technological interference in the conception of human life presents a threat to the spiritual integrity and physical health of a person. A threat comes also for interpersonal relations on which the community has been built from of old. The development of the above-mentioned technologies has brought about the ideology of the so-called reproductive rights, widely propagated today on both national and international levels. This ideological system assumes that the sexual and social self-fulfilment of a person has a priority over concern for the future of a child, the spiritual and physical health of society and its moral sustainability. There is a growing attitude to the human life as a product which can be chosen according to one's own inclinations and which can be disposed of along with material goods.

In the prayers of the marriage celebration, the Orthodox Church expresses the hope that childbirth, while being a desired fruit of lawful marriage, is not its only purpose. Along with «a fruit of the womb to profit», the Church asks for the gift of enduring love, chastity and «the harmony of the souls and bodies». Therefore, the Church cannot regard as morally justified the ways to childbirth disagreeable with the design of the Creator of life. If a husband or a wife is sterile and the therapeutic and surgical methods of infertility treatment do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept childlessness as a special calling in life. In these cases, pastoral counsel should consider the adoption of a child by the spouses' mutual consent. Among the admissible means of medical aid may be an artificial insemination by the husband's germ cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations.

However, manipulations involved in the donation of germ cells do violate the integrity of a person and the unique nature of marital relations by allowing of a third party to interfere. In addition, this practice encourages the irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, admittedly free from any commitment to those who are «flesh of the flesh» of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that a child has, in addition to the «social» parents, the so-called biological ones. «Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother's feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis. Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extracorporal fertilisation involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of «spare» embryos. It is on the recognition of the human dignity even in an embryo that the moral assessment of abortion by the Church is based (see, XII. 2).

The insemination of single women with the use of donor germ cells or the realisation of the «reproductive rights» of single men and persons with the so-called non-standard sexual orientation deprive the future child of the right to have mother and father. The use of reproductive methods outside the context of the God-blessed family has become a form of theomachism carried out under the pretext of the protection of the individual's autonomy and wrongly-understood individual freedom.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

My own view (and I seem to be in opposition to my own pastor on this, so it is my own views) that a possible exception would be the surrogates for "snow flake adoptions," frozen fetuses abandoned by their parents (why the Orthodox Church forbids this) who are adopted and born by their adoptive mother. The reason is that the fetuses, not taken out of frozen suspension, will degenerate i.e. die.  An argument may be made for a woman willing to bear them but not able to adopt them, do to the emmient death, but I'm not as sure on that.

Interesting.

I agree completely with using a third party's sperm or egg as immoral, but I had never considered a rent-a-womb  :D as being immoral.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 07, 2010, 10:57:27 PM
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19

However, manipulations involved in the donation of germ cells do violate the integrity of a person and the unique nature of marital relations by allowing of a third party to interfere. In addition, this practice encourages the irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, admittedly free from any commitment to those who are «flesh of the flesh» of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that a child has, in addition to the «social» parents, the so-called biological ones. «Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother's feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis. Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extracorporal fertilisation involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of «spare» embryos. It is on the recognition of the human dignity even in an embryo that the moral assessment of abortion by the Church is based (see, XII. 2).

The insemination of single women with the use of donor germ cells or the realisation of the «reproductive rights» of single men and persons with the so-called non-standard sexual orientation deprive the future child of the right to have mother and father. The use of reproductive methods outside the context of the God-blessed family has become a form of theomachism carried out under the pretext of the protection of the individual's autonomy and wrongly-understood individual freedom.


Much of the reasoning used here would make adoption impossible.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 11:27:46 PM
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 07, 2010, 11:35:55 PM
Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC.

talk to St. Clement, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and the others caught in that quote mine which goes the rounds to support the Vatican's HV.

Quote
ABC violates natural law

The Orthoox moral theology of Christ's Church comes from His Gospel, not natural theology.

Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.

Quote
NFP does no such thing.

Action theory, another obsession of the Vatican, picked up by Aquinas.

Quote
There are supposed to be only certain days during the month when woman has a substantial probability of getting pregnant.

And, acordoing to the consensus of those fathers the HV quote mines cite, that is the ONLY time you should engage in intercourse.

Quote
There are supposed to be days when that probability is extremely low. This is written into the nature of the female body.

and forms the basis of the chemistry of the contraceeptive pill. Btw the probability when she is already pregnant is practically if not nill.

Quote
This is a real and substantial difference.
That is a distinction without a difference.

Quote
And that real difference leads to practical results in the building of virtue. One method (NFP) teaches a person self control,

I wasn't aware "NFP" inclued coitus interruptus, which entails LOTS of self control.

Quote
the other (ABC) teaches a person to satisfy his or her passions on demand.
As Fatehr has pointed out, as long as they are willing to risk pregnancy, they can satisfy their passions 24/7 on demand.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 07, 2010, 11:43:26 PM
Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.


Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2010, 11:47:48 PM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.

This is beyond nonsense.   I cannot even understand why my Church would even dream of discoursing with such muddled thinking.  It's a good thing I am not in charge.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 07, 2010, 11:47:48 PM

The Church allows for contraception under some very narrow guidelines.  No ARTIFICIAL means please.  


I'd give that a Yes and a No!  It's verging on deception.  As we both of us know your Church allows the use of even the most sinful and murderous kinds of artificial contraception if either the husband or the wife insists on it.  The other spouse, even though a Catholic, has the blessing of your Church to acquiesce and to participate in the use of even abortifacients.

You know this, I know this.  It is in the Vademecum published by the Vatican for confessors.  

No question about pastoral.  And it is why I say you turn the exception into the rule. 

The Catholic Church teaches the rule and not the exception, though she makes room for pastoral exceptions.

You seem to think Orthodoxy teaches the exception as moral.

I really don't care except for the fact that there's some mythical attempt at cooperation that is deeply misguided.  But you keep talking and I am sure somebody in my Church will realize the futility of any kind of interaction on moral grounds.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:08:09 AM
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.
The (high dose) pill, condoms, sterilization, artificial insemination, withdrawal, in vitro fertilization. and perhaps a few others I haven't thought of.

The article needs a bit of work.
Quote
The presence of a device in the uterus prompts the release of substances hostile to both sperm and eggs; the presence of copper increases this spermicidal effect. However, the same effect is believed to harm developing embryos. While the primary mechanism of the IUD is spermicidal/ovicidal, post-fertilization mechanisms are believed to contribute significantly to their effectiveness. Because Christians define fertilization as the beginning of life, this secondary effect is considered by them as early abortion.
Although correct, the reference to "secondary effects" would seem to indicate that the author is borrowiing his reasoning, rather than citing Orthodox moral theology.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:11:55 AM
Quote
because it purposely frustrates the normal functioning of the human body with regard to reproduction.

And what if it does not succeed?

Then there is withrawal.


Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.
LOL. Don't rely on the orthodoxwiki article too much. Augustine posted something back from the perspective of someone who condemned condoms, and saw that as onainsm.  Those who condemn withdrawal are likely to condemn contraception (including abstinence during fertile periods) as well.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:21:45 AM
http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=19

However, manipulations involved in the donation of germ cells do violate the integrity of a person and the unique nature of marital relations by allowing of a third party to interfere. In addition, this practice encourages the irresponsible fatherhood or motherhood, admittedly free from any commitment to those who are «flesh of the flesh» of anonymous donors. The use of donor material undermines the foundations of family relationships, since it presupposes that a child has, in addition to the «social» parents, the so-called biological ones. «Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother's feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis. Morally inadmissible from the Orthodox point of view are also all kinds of extracorporal fertilisation involving the production, conservation and purposeful destruction of «spare» embryos. It is on the recognition of the human dignity even in an embryo that the moral assessment of abortion by the Church is based (see, XII. 2).

The insemination of single women with the use of donor germ cells or the realisation of the «reproductive rights» of single men and persons with the so-called non-standard sexual orientation deprive the future child of the right to have mother and father. The use of reproductive methods outside the context of the God-blessed family has become a form of theomachism carried out under the pretext of the protection of the individual's autonomy and wrongly-understood individual freedom.


Much of the reasoning used here would make adoption impossible.
What in particular, Father?  For instance, in IL, the law recognizes that adoption was neither recognized by common law nor natural law, but was a borrowing  from Roman law.  In contrast, parental rights in the common law are recognized as coming to them by nature.  As part of that, the natural and common law rights of both parents must be terminated by due process before the legal attachments can be enacted by the adoption statute.  In what the Church says, it is not talking about children whose parents had their rights terminated, but those who sold or rented their rights.  After all, every sponsorship of a baptism is a form of adoption. In fact, in many countries a godchild is the heir of a childless godparent.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:23:31 AM
But it is still avoiding vs prevention.

Oh, goodness gracious.  Calling NFP anything but "contraception" is a logical fallacy (or extreme denial), IMO.  There's nothing "natural" about stifling sexual drive for 2+ weeks of the month every month (anyone who tells you a lower number is fooling themselves) for the sake of avoiding conception.  It's not a fast (what St. Paul provides for), it's not part of God's design, it's contraception.

Quote
The Moral Difference Between Contraception and Natural Family Planning
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_04moraldifference.html
suffers from the natural law folks' addiction to syllogism, no matter how false, along with their determinatist bent in action theory.  This seems to stem from St. Augusitne's equating natural law with the prefallen state, a position which was not accepted as Orthodox, and hence the peripheral use of Natural Law in Orthodox theology, in particular perhaps moral theology, as opposed to the Vatican's heavy dependence on it.



Which makes ever more clear to me the absurdity of the Catholic Church trying to engage Orthodoxy in ANY kind of so-called common approach to the morality of Europe or anywhere else in the world.  It is a Fool's Errand!!

M.
That is the problem: the Vatican's insistence on seeing natural law not as the laws of nature but the natural method of learning about the law of God (thanks to Thomas Aquinas). We have no problem arguing on the basis of natural law and even of co-ordinating social action with non-believers by it, but we will not substitute natural theology for the Creed.

This is beyond nonsense.   I cannot even understand why my Church would even dream of discoursing with such muddled thinking.  It's a good thing I am not in charge.
You are the one always prattling on about "dialoguing" Not I.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 12:24:24 AM

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 12:28:01 AM
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.

I don't know why you mention condom use.  The Wiki article leaves the condom section blank (as it does also for the sterilisation section.)  Are we meant to conclude that there is no teaching on condom use?  Or that the author/s of the Wiki article are clueless on this point?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 08, 2010, 12:29:45 AM

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.

Even with only the #3, the pill and IUDs are eliminated, leaving only condoms, withdrawal, and NFP?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 08, 2010, 12:30:57 AM
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception

From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic except for possible use of condoms for the right reason.

I don't know why you mention condom use.  The Wiki article leaves the condom section blank (as it does also for the sterilisation section.)  Are we meant to conclude that there is no teaching on condom use?  Or that the author/s of the Wiki article are clueless on this point?

I'm including the recent announcement on condom use from the ROC, not expressed in the wiki.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 12:35:29 AM

Even Orthodox see withdrawal as an over-indulgence of the flesh.

Withdrawal is what your Catholic expert commentator might call outercourse onanism.  Intercourse on a day when the NFP charts say you cannot conceive might be called intervaginal onanism and an over-indulgence in the flesh.  Sin is in the intention, isn't it?  and the Roman Catholic approach is laden with intentional sin and the intentional waste of semen.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:36:04 AM

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Contraception
From the wiki, it would seem that the Orthodox majority isn't much different from the Catholic


Wiki of course is only as good as the "scholars" who contribute to it.

1) There are those who hold the view that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, and so even natural family planning would be prohibited.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

2) There are those who argue that natural family planning is acceptable, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely.

Please note ~ not one citation from any official Orthodox source.  It's some individual's opinion.

3) There are those who teach that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used simply to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. The statement on marriage and family from the 10th All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America follows along these lines, as does "The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," section XII. 3, which was approved by the 2000 Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

At last ~ TWO official Orthodox sources are given for this last teaching.  We have moved out of dubious private opinion in (1) and (2) into the considered teaching of our bishops.

Even with only the #3, the pill and IUDs are eliminated, leaving only condoms, withdrawal, and NFP?
I don't think the pill is eliminated (the low dose perhaps is, from the risk of acting like an abortifacient; the high dose ones should be from the effects and risks on the woman, but that's just my opinion).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 01:41:27 AM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 08, 2010, 11:52:43 AM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 12:03:19 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2010, 01:13:46 PM
Here is what I don't understand: How on earth anyone can say that NFP is the same as ABC.


The Catholic commentary provided by Azurestone to the two quotes from the teaching of Saint Clement of Alexandria, affirm that it is a mortal sin to waste semen.  The intention of a Catholic couple using NFP to enjoy sex in the non fertile period is to waste the husband's semen without conceiving a child. NFP is mortally sinful when used in this way, and let's face it this is the major use of NFP by Roman Catholics - to avoid conceiving or to "space" children.   NFP involves wasting gallons of semen.

Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.
You didn't quote the rest of what I said. Nice try Father.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 08, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2010, 03:11:44 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 08, 2010, 03:13:11 PM
Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2010, 03:14:25 PM
Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
True. It should only be used to naturally space children for serious economic, or health reasons.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 03:51:45 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 
No, the twisted arguments of Vatican theology. Like a pretzel.

Anyone can read that for themselves. Unlike you, I link and quote instead of conjecture and project the other side (or my side, for that matter).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 03:53:07 PM

And now we hear from the
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
corner
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 04:02:11 PM
Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain

in the sense of "spiritual marriage"/"Josephite marriage"?

Quote
or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.
Is any form of contraception an end in itself?  If it were, that would be a sin.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 08, 2010, 04:54:28 PM
Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.

Sometimes people have difficulty grasping the fact that there are many Catholics who simply abstain...or as you say, leave it to God.

They tend to practice the rule rather than the exception. 

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2010, 05:43:05 PM

And now we hear from the
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
corner
Go to the corner.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 07:04:35 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 08, 2010, 07:13:04 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 08:37:21 PM
Again, it is helpful for to keep things in perspective and remember that a mere 2-3% of Roman Catholic couples use NFP anyway.  It's a dead duck in the water.  Catholics see no need to pay attention to the opinions of the Pope.

From my various talks with Trads, NFP isn't as popular because most either abstain or "leave it to God". NFP is a method for family planning, not an end in itself.

Sometimes people have difficulty grasping the fact that there are many Catholics who simply abstain

Then why did they get married.

Quote
...or as you say, leave it to God.

But not so much: the surveys I have seen show the average family size of those on what you call "NFP" as 3, other families averaging 2. One would think that with the great chasm that is postulated between "ABC" and "NFP," the number would be more than 1 child.

Quote
They tend to practice the rule rather than the exception. 
There's that new talk of exception again.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 09:15:33 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

So Natural Law applies only to the human race?  The rest of the cosmos doesn't have a law?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 08, 2010, 09:42:10 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 09:46:44 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "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." (The Instructor 2.10).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 08, 2010, 09:48:05 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.
Thank God I am a city boy, not confronted with these matters.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 09:56:07 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Bulls don't "enjoy" sex, it's instinctual. When one bull "mounts" another, it is domination to set a hierarchy. Literally, one bull making the other bull his !%^@.

I've lived with bulls and empirical evidence suggests there is a high level of pleasure going on.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 08, 2010, 10:02:35 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on December 09, 2010, 01:05:17 AM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 12:38:07 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:35:36 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte
Another stupid post. We are talking about the metaphysical concept of a nature or physis. We are not talking about the law of the jungle. Geesh.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:37:14 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:38:48 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "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." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science. Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:40:45 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

So Natural Law applies only to the human race?  The rest of the cosmos doesn't have a law?
The rest of the cosmos (i.e. irrational creatures) are governed by the laws of physics only. Only human beings have a rational and moral nature that evaluate the proper use of one's own functions, and so, only for rational beings is there a Natural Moral Law. But I am sure  you know that.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 01:54:25 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:59:12 PM

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!

Exactly. If EOs continue down their path of departing from moral truth, I fear that their Apostolic Succession will cease to be.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 01:59:45 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 02:05:01 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "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." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 02:06:46 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "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." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month. Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman. That is its nature. Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom, or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this. The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 02:18:52 PM
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 02:39:53 PM
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality. How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 02:56:47 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "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." (The Instructor 2.10).

What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria



"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Quote
Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month.

SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
Quote
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Quote
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.

Quote
Augustine

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

Jerome

"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?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Quote
Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman.

Then why the opposition of the Vatican to artificial insemenation?

Quote
That is its nature.

Then it wouldn't come out in nocturnal emissions, nor be broken down and absorbed if not ejaculate (into a woman or otherwise).

Quote
Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom,
or a infertile/barren woman. In fact, since 16 million -1 are expended in a conception, even there most are vainly ejaculated, no matter how much they contribute to the success of the one.

Quote
or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this.


I know that there is more to a relationship than treating the man like a sperm donor with an insemenination catheter.

Quote
]The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.
Rather presumptious of you to assUme my private life.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on December 09, 2010, 02:58:54 PM
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality.
In that order, I'm sure.
Quote
How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 02:59:37 PM
^ Izzy, you just brought up so many childish pedestrian points that I am going to have to respond this evening when I am at home. Geesh. I never though I would see so many stupids points coming from you at one time.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on December 09, 2010, 03:00:31 PM
Are  you dead set on producing ridiculousl and inane posts? We are not talking about the Law of the Jungle when we are talking about Natural Law. We are talking about treating everything in accord with it's metaphysical nature. Human nature is rational and can rationally analzye the purpose of sex organs.
To urinate?
definitely one of the two functions. Keep going. You are almost there izzy.
What two functions? EM keeps on telling us that sex is not necessary (something that natural law contradicts), but it remains a fact that only one function is necessry, i.e. you will die if you do not engage in it.

That'st he problem when you base your moral reasoning on physiology. If you are looking for metaphysics, you have to come to revelation.  Action theory works only in the ravings of Aquinas and company. Take the gift of speech: the speech organs are ALL misnamed, as none of them are disigned for speech. And yet man speaks the Word none the less.

I wonder if Mr. Conte knew that female organism aids the semen to be drawn in towards the egg, if it would upset his well laid out moral arguments, or would he reckon that it's primary function is to pleasure the woman, and reject it accordingly.
What alot of senseless drivel. First, the two functions are clear. Exrcretion of waste and sexuality.
In that order, I'm sure.
Quote
How can you possibly miss this? I don't think you are stupid, so you must be dishonest.
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
Not an honesty application at all. It's childish drivel. The same kinds of nonsensical arguements I expect to see from my teenage students, not from a grown man.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 09, 2010, 03:52:49 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!

Having a bit of fun with your "Natural Law."  :laugh: :laugh:  No need for you to fixate on us.  But I do notice that for a celibate woman who wants to be a consecrated hermitess you do have much to say on these issues.  To my mind that does not gel.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 09, 2010, 03:57:24 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Reminder to self:  do not seek any counsel from Mary.  Two small references to bulls and she diagnoses it as a "fixation."   :)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on December 09, 2010, 04:01:51 PM
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.

Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!

The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).



If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.

What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte

I confess that I did not read him.  After dipping my toe in the water and reading a paragraph or two, I felt quite dirty and closed the website.  I hope I won't be accused of refusing to comprehend Roman Catholic morals.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on December 09, 2010, 04:31:31 PM
(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh261/acceptme60/bull-balls.jpg)

That had to hurt.








Come on. It's relevant!
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on December 09, 2010, 04:49:26 PM
And the bull was thinking "hey, I'm the underdog, but I have a chance to win this thing!"
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on February 21, 2011, 06:46:06 PM
^ Izzy, you just brought up so many childish pedestrian points that I am going to have to respond this evening when I am at home. Geesh. I never though I would see so many stupids points coming from you at one time.
We're still waiting....
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on February 21, 2011, 07:52:30 PM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on February 22, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days. The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman, and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days. To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law. Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile. Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days. Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible. If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on February 22, 2011, 10:16:14 AM
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
More stupid comments from Izzy. Natural Law is not based on what a person does or is capable of. Natural law is not the "law of the Jungle". Natural law is about a reasoned conclusion concerning a person's factulties' natural end.
Of course because you are an existentialist (i.e. a heretic who actually denies the incarnation), you can't see natural ends.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on February 23, 2011, 06:43:11 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days.

They demand it by their (and your) action theory of natural law.  If the "natural end of sperm" is restricted to uniting with an ovum, then it can be ejaculated only on certain days to achieve that. Even then, it falls short.

The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman,

you mean into a woman's vagina. Btw, do you claim for its natural end "to be ejaculated into his wife's vagina," or do you say natural law just says "a woman"?

and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days.

The Fathers upon which you (I can't say HV, as it doesn't cite any Fathers) depend do not make your distinction. St. Clement, for instance, is quite explicit on that. So for Patristics, you are going to have to defend making a distinction your authorities do not.

As a matter of fact, even for you action theory of natural law, you have to defend your distinction that nature does not.

To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law.


According to nature, the vast majority of sperm do not reach this end. So much for natural law.

Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile.

Do all of them? Not sure if that is demonstrated. Did some of them? Yes, we definitely know that because St. Augustine explicitely talks about it and blames and accident in calculating for him impregnating his concubine with his son.  Did they know accurately? Not relevant: the relevance lies in connecting their actions to their beliefs/knowledge, not in how scientically accurate they were.

Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days.

That we know that they definitely knew. Estris plays a role in the bestiaries of the Fathers, those which you are depending on making the rather odd demand, contrary to the customary admonitions, that people act like animals, those "unreasoning beasts [who] know enough not to mate at certain times." IOW, the infertile periods.

Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible.

LOL. A la HV. Alas, no.  It is quite clear, as they are explicit, that they knew those "frustrating" days.


If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
It would comfot you to think so, and the argument can be made. Whether the argument on Aquinas would persuade is another matter. on the matter at hand, however, you are pretty much out of luck. No only can the argument be made both to say that they would have specified ONLY the fertile days, or that they would have been more open to contraception, but it reveals the problem of depending on "natural law."
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Iconodule on February 23, 2011, 09:09:22 AM
This thread is pretty sad.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on February 23, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
I don't have source documents, yet, but here are some quotes for discussion.

2nd Century
East: St. Clement of Alexandria says in A.D. 191, [The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2], "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."

WRH: The seed is something precious, and wasting it is a mortal sin, as we see from God's swift and just execution of Onan. Sterilization (damaging the seed) is impermissible, and so are all types of outercourse; all intercourse must be vaginal.

The saint adds [The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3], "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."

WRH: St. Clement teaches that any sexual intercourse that is not open to life is unnatural.


We see here the absolute prohibition on having intercourse during the times when the woman is unable to conceive.  When, through the use of the NFP method, it is known to be an infertile time for the woman and the male ejaculates uselessly into the vagina, this is, as the Catholic commentary says, a mortal sin and against the Natural Law,

Unfortunately those who use NFP mostly use it to achieve this state of mortal sin.

I have no idea how the Popes reconcile their modern teaching with patristic teaching.  It is more than obvious that these Fathers would prohibit all intercourse during a woman's infertile period.
Quite a Catch-22 we are in if St. Clement is right, knowing what we now know about the life of spermazoa and a woman's cycle.

If you ejaculate in any but two days out of the month, the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

The best practice for fertility, however, is ejaculating every two days.  In fact, after 10 days of no ejaculation, the chance of conception is less than 3%, so again the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

This is because semen has a shelf life: use it or lose it.  Its life cycle lasts only a month, which includes necrosis if left in storage, being broken down and reabsorbed into the body. So even if it not vainly ejaculated, it will be wasted.

The process of reabsorbtion is irritating to the prostate, which is why it can lead to noctural emissions, in which case the semen is vainly ejaculated and wasted.

St. Clement and his fellow Stoics seem to have labored under the misapprehension that semen is made to order. Not so.
The first of the two quotes do not suggest that sex must be had only on certain days.

They demand it by their (and your) action theory of natural law.  If the "natural end of sperm" is restricted to uniting with an ovum, then it can be ejaculated only on certain days to achieve that. Even then, it falls short.

The natural end of sperm is to be ejactulated into a woman,

you mean into a woman's vagina. Btw, do you claim for its natural end "to be ejaculated into his wife's vagina," or do you say natural law just says "a woman"?

and to create new life on particular days, and not to create life on other particular days.

The Fathers upon which you (I can't say HV, as it doesn't cite any Fathers) depend do not make your distinction. St. Clement, for instance, is quite explicit on that. So for Patristics, you are going to have to defend making a distinction your authorities do not.

As a matter of fact, even for you action theory of natural law, you have to defend your distinction that nature does not.

To frustrate this end is contrary to natural law.


According to nature, the vast majority of sperm do not reach this end. So much for natural law.

Now, the final quote, I actually think is in line with Catholic teaching because I don't think that the Church fathers had detailed knowledge of the days in which a woman was fertile.

Do all of them? Not sure if that is demonstrated. Did some of them? Yes, we definitely know that because St. Augustine explicitely talks about it and blames and accident in calculating for him impregnating his concubine with his son.  Did they know accurately? Not relevant: the relevance lies in connecting their actions to their beliefs/knowledge, not in how scientically accurate they were.

Therefore, I don't think that they knew it was impossible to concieve on certain days.

That we know that they definitely knew. Estris plays a role in the bestiaries of the Fathers, those which you are depending on making the rather odd demand, contrary to the customary admonitions, that people act like animals, those "unreasoning beasts [who] know enough not to mate at certain times." IOW, the infertile periods.

Therefore, for them to say that one must have sex in order to procreate must have meant that one must not fruste that possiblity on any given day, given the premise that conception is always possible.

LOL. A la HV. Alas, no.  It is quite clear, as they are explicit, that they knew those "frustrating" days.


If the Church Fathers had had the knowledge that we have, of the near impossibility of contraception naturaly built into the woman's cycle, I believe that they would have worded their statements on the matter differently, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would have believed that ensoulment happened at conception, if he knew what we now know about biology.
It would comfot you to think so, and the argument can be made. Whether the argument on Aquinas would persuade is another matter. on the matter at hand, however, you are pretty much out of luck. No only can the argument be made both to say that they would have specified ONLY the fertile days, or that they would have been more open to contraception, but it reveals the problem of depending on "natural law."
What's sad Isa, is that your Church claims to be unchanging, and to follow the teachings of the Fathers, yet ya'll are in direct opposition to the Fathers.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on February 23, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
What's sad Isa, is that your Church claims to be unchanging, and to follow the teachings of the Fathers, yet ya'll are in direct opposition to the Fathers.
LOL. Again with the assertions not backed up.

Ah, the Vatican's sanctimony born in the Corban twins-"natural family planning" and "annullments." Sure to mentioned in the first breath of an apologist for the Vatican on how it has "kept the Fathers."

If you want to abandon even what is salvageable in Humanae Vitae and adopt St. Clement's (who, not suprising, was not married) views brought in by him from Stoicism, St. Jerome's rather gnostic views ("even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the stain of marriage"), and share St. Augustine's personal problems with issues of sexuality (and remember, he was not a virgin but neither did he ever marry), etc., you are welcome to them.

The Orthodox Church in her prayers blessing the married couple placed itself in the time of the Fathers against gnosticism and the reduction of the married to second (if even) class status to serve no purpose beyond breeding for virgins (St. Jerome's self-proclaimed sole praise for marriage), and had continued to follow the Fathers in dealing with such matters in her pastors dealing with real people, and not monks engaged in navel gazing.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 02:16:48 AM
Just an honest application of your action theory and naturla law, with the implications you have missed, or your "moral theologians" have dishonestly sidelined.
More stupid comments from Izzy. Natural Law is not based on what a person does or is capable of. Natural law is not the "law of the Jungle". Natural law is about a reasoned conclusion concerning a person's factulties' natural end.
Of course because you are an existentialist (i.e. a heretic who actually denies the incarnation), you can't see natural ends.
I just noticed that we don't have the official (or semi-official, or infallible, or authoritiative-we can't get a straight answer on what exactly is the status of the CCC in the hierarchy of certitude) definition of natural law:
Quote
I. The Natural Moral Law

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597)

1955 The "divine and natural" law (GS 89 # 1) shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. the natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. (St. Augustine, De Trin. 14, 15, 21: PL 42,1052)

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I)

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. (Cicero, Rep. III, 22, 33)
!
Quoting the Stoic as its authority, the Vatican reveals the origin of its "Natural Law."
Quote
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;(Cf. GS 10) it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (St. Augustine, Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678)

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error." (Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005) The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists. Oh well. I would like to know how he, the CCC and the rest of the Vatican would distinguish this clinging to Natural Law from the foolishness of the Judaizers of the Galatians.
.

To give another definition:
Quote
the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 03:13:49 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 03:15:11 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 03:19:35 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 03:32:18 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 03:33:33 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 09, 2011, 03:46:26 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 03:51:16 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
It's not slander. You said you are an existentialist. Existentialism does not allow for the possibility of an Incarnation, since existentialism denies the existence of human nature.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 03:58:18 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 04:00:29 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  ;D
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 09, 2011, 04:04:32 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.

The Catholic [my Church's] teaching on natural law can be offered in a two word summation:

Divine Providence.

Since you have no grasp of that reality, I can only assume that you have not even googled the topic and are speaking purely extemporaneously on the subject. 

At that rate it is really not worth my time or Papists engaging the topic with you, and I will concur with your fellow Orthodox here who said something to the effect that it was a silly sort of non-discussion.

M.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 04:07:58 PM
I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists.
Yup. Existentialists don't believe in the Incarantion, so they are not looked on highly by real Christian theologians.
says the man whose theologians cites the Stoic pagan Cicero (a point I'll return to) as an authority for its theology.  Old habits die hard it seems:
Quote
Palamas and his hesychast followers firmly opposed (what they took to be) the legalistic and rationalistic outlook of the West. An eastern representative at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) concisely expressed the views of the Palamite party when, in response to the Latins’ tendency to quote Aristotle as an authority, he exclaimed, “What about Aristotle, Aristotle? A fig for your fine Aristotle.” When asked whose authority he accepted, he replied, “St Peter, St Paul, St Basil, Gregory the Theologian; a fig for your Aristotle, Aristotle.”
http://www.theandros.com/palamas.html
In contrast to Aristotle and Cicero, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky and myself believe in the Incarnation.

Wrong again, papist.

Arguing with Mardukm (who of course is claiming the Copts believe the same as the Latins, although he doesn't substantiate the assertion and despite the evidence to the contrary), I've been thinking about the materialism of the Stoics, who identify nature with a pantheistic god in their creation of Natural Law.  It is interesting how the Incarnation does not make Christianity pantheistic.
And it's interesting how your existentialist position leads to a denial of the incarnation.
Hasn't yet, nor will it.

Your Scholasticism>Classicism>Renaissance>Enlightenment>Rationalsim>Deism>Agnosticism>Atheism>Neopaganism is a different matter.
And your denial of the Incarnation is the matter at hand.
And the proof of your false witness and slander?
It's not slander. You said you are an existentialist. Existentialism does not allow for the possibility of an Incarnation, since existentialism denies the existence of human nature.
So you believe Christ brought His Body down from heaven, or the Logos took a body to inhabit, or the Son of God is not begotten before the ages.  Interesting.

Existence precedes essence.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 04:09:46 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  ;D
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on March 09, 2011, 04:14:13 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  ;D
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Which must be embarrassing for you Izzy, since you are wrong.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 04:20:27 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.

The Catholic [my Church's] teaching on natural law can be offered in a two word summation:

Divine Providence.

Another two words would be more appropriate summation.

Since you have no grasp of that reality,

enough of a graspt to know not to cite a pagan as an authority for what purports to be the catechism of the Christian Church, a tighter grip of the Truth then than your magisterium managed.

I can only assume that you have not even googled the topic and are speaking purely extemporaneously on the subject.


You assUme wrong. Like I said, you can't read anything that the Vatican puts out without coming across Natural Law. But if you don't have God's Revelation, I guess they have to make do with Natural Law and apparitions.

At that rate it is really not worth my time or Papists engaging the topic with you, and I will concur with your fellow Orthodox here who said something to the effect that it was a silly sort of non-discussion.
There is nothing to discuss: the Vatican is in error in its teaching on both contraception and Natural Law, and especially on its combination of the two.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 04:22:04 PM
Just a quick question:  Does anyone posting on this topic have any exposure to my Church's [Catholic] teaching on Natural Law outside of Google?

M.

I've had to google for the Orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church on Natural Law, as it doesn't come up often.

I've never had to google for any of the Vatican's teaching of the matter, as Natural Law theory is so intrinsic to its magisterium's teaching.
Izzy is once again being a silly-willy, by referring to the Catholic Church as the "Vatican". You make me laugh.  ;D
That's good, because we're laughing at you, not with you.
Which must be embarrassing for you Izzy, since you are wrong.
LOL.  Those who confess the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church are immune to your pontification papist.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 04:45:00 PM
The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky
http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&pg=PA92&dq=Lossky+being+and+nothingness&cd=2#v=onepage&q=existentialism&f=false
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 09, 2011, 05:29:20 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

    Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

    The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

    Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

    For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

    Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 06:26:13 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

    Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

Was there some reason to repost what I've just posted?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.msg541481.html#msg541481

It might be helpful to hear contrast what your CCC says about the Old Law:
Quote
II. The Old Law

1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. the Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.

1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. the precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. the Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 57, 1: PL 36, 673.


14 Cf. ⇒ Rom 7:12, ⇒ 14, ⇒ 16.


15 Cf. ⇒ Gal 3:24.


16 Cf. ⇒ Rom 7.


17 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 15, 1: PG 7/1, 1012.


18 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 107, 1 ad 2; cf. ⇒ Rom 5:5.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 09, 2011, 06:58:44 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

IN BRIEF

1975 According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil.

1976 "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4).

1977 Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.

1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

1986 Besides its precepts the New Law includes the evangelical counsels. "The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the Gospel" (LG 42 § 2).

Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 09, 2011, 08:11:14 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

IN BRIEF

1975 According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil.

1976 "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4).

1977 Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.

1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

So the Natural Law is superior to the Old Law, as it "is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid," while on the Old Law, the New Law "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).  But this contradicts Scripture, i.e. Revelation, the New Law, which says  "For the form of this world is passing away" (I Cor. 7:31)

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties," and thus surpasses the Old Law "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never....make perfect those who draw near" (Heb. 10:1). Yet that contradicts the words of the Word of the New Law, "the end of the law": "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mat. 5:18).

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties" and so of more value than than the Old Law, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10)  But when Scripture consisted only of the Old Law, the New Law stated "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (II Tim. 3:16-7).

So your magisterium clings to Natural Law while disgarding the Old Law as merely "the first stage of revealed law," and "a preparation for the Gospel," as "The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection," without, evidently (given your magisterium dependenc on it for theology), surpassing or perfecting the Natural Law as "a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law." So the Graeco-Roman philosophers as the vehicle of Natural Law outdo the the prophets of the Jews.  But we'll stick with the assessment of the Apostle of the New Law "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2), and the "end of the law": "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 09, 2011, 08:34:07 PM
All this has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.  This is all the Teaching of Ialmisry.  It may be of interest to some but it is of no consequence to what I posted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you don't want to discuss what is there...?


So the Natural Law is superior to the Old Law, as it "is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid," while on the Old Law, the New Law "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).  But this contradicts Scripture, i.e. Revelation, the New Law, which says  "For the form of this world is passing away" (I Cor. 7:31)

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties," and thus surpasses the Old Law "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never....make perfect those who draw near" (Heb. 10:1). Yet that contradicts the words of the Word of the New Law, "the end of the law": "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mat. 5:18).

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties" and so of more value than than the Old Law, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10)  But when Scripture consisted only of the Old Law, the New Law stated "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (II Tim. 3:16-7).

So your magisterium clings to Natural Law while disgarding the Old Law as merely "the first stage of revealed law," and "a preparation for the Gospel," as "The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection," without, evidently (given your magisterium dependenc on it for theology), surpassing or perfecting the Natural Law as "a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law." So the Graeco-Roman philosophers as the vehicle of Natural Law outdo the the prophets of the Jews.  But we'll stick with the assessment of the Apostle of the New Law "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2), and the "end of the law": "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Wyatt on March 10, 2011, 12:52:04 AM
This thread feels so not in the spirit of Lent.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 12:59:45 AM
All this has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.  This is all the Teaching of Ialmisry.
Ialmisry confesses the Orthodox Faith that the Catholic Church teaches.

It may be of interest to some but it is of no consequence to what I posted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Perhaps you don't want to discuss what is there...?
You mean what I quoted from the "Cathechism of the Catholic Church" that you quoted? (in bold face below.  In red I put the quotes from scripture, or does that of no consequence to the CCC too?

So the Natural Law is superior to the Old Law, as it "is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid," while on the Old Law, the New Law "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).  But this contradicts Scripture, i.e. Revelation, the New Law, which says  "For the form of this world is passing away" (I Cor. 7:31)

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties," and thus surpasses the Old Law "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never....make perfect those who draw near" (Heb. 10:1). Yet that contradicts the words of the Word of the New Law, "the end of the law": "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mat. 5:18).

So "The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties" and so of more value than than the Old Law, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10)  But when Scripture consisted only of the Old Law, the New Law stated "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (II Tim. 3:16-7).

So your magisterium clings to Natural Law while disgarding the Old Law as merely "the first stage of revealed law," and "a preparation for the Gospel," as "The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection," without, evidently (given your magisterium dependenc on it for theology), surpassing or perfecting the Natural Law as "a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law." So the Graeco-Roman philosophers as the vehicle of Natural Law outdo the the prophets of the Jews.  But we'll stick with the assessment of the Apostle of the New Law "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2), and the "end of the law": "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
[/quote]
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Iconodule on March 10, 2011, 09:31:54 AM
No one is going to benefit from this thread and it is a gigantic waste of your time. Cut your losses now.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 10, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

There is a Synergy in the Old, New and Natural Laws that will never be allowed to shine through in this discussion thereby making it, indeed, a waste of time to try to continue.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 12:40:43 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

There is a Synergy in the Old, New and Natural Laws that will never be allowed to shine through in this discussion thereby making it, indeed, a waste of time to try to continue.

All this has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.  This is all the Teaching of Elijahmaria.  It may be of interest to some but it is of no consequence to what was posted from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," which casts the Old Law aside but upholds Natural Law as eternal.  Perhaps you don't want to discuss what is there...?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 10, 2011, 12:53:09 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

There is a Synergy in the Old, New and Natural Laws that will never be allowed to shine through in this discussion thereby making it, indeed, a waste of time to try to continue.

All this has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.  This is all the Teaching of Elijahmaria.  It may be of interest to some but it is of no consequence to what was posted from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," which casts the Old Law aside but upholds Natural Law as eternal.  Perhaps you don't want to discuss what is there...?


Dearheart,

This is simply not true.  This is your own interpretation of it, but it is simply wrong.

I am sorry but there's nothing to do but say so and move on.

Mary
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

There is a Synergy in the Old, New and Natural Laws that will never be allowed to shine through in this discussion thereby making it, indeed, a waste of time to try to continue.

All this has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.  This is all the Teaching of Elijahmaria.  It may be of interest to some but it is of no consequence to what was posted from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," which casts the Old Law aside but upholds Natural Law as eternal.  Perhaps you don't want to discuss what is there...?


Dearheart,

This is simply not true.  This is your own interpretation of it, but it is simply wrong.

I am sorry but there's nothing to do but say so and move on.

Mary
Simply pontificating that it is wrong ex cathedra doesn't cut it.  The Vatican can move on (though, as we have discussed before, its followers on this issue are not following), but that problem remains.  I brought this problem up on a like thread:
I was rereading HV, and this struck my eye:
Quote
Interpreting the Moral Law
This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

That seems to be the problem with much of the Vatican's moral (and even theological) teaching: in Orthodoxy, the principles of the moral teaching on marriage are based on divine Revelation, and illuminated and enriched by natural law. This confusion is continued in HV:
Quote
No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (See Mt 28. 18-19) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (See Mt 7. 21)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (See Council of Trent Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 8; Leo XIII, encyc.letter Arcanum: Acta Leonis XIII, 2 (1880), 26-29; Pius XI, encyc.letter Divini illius Magistri: AAS 22 (1930), 58-61; encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 545-546; Pius XII, Address to Italian Medico-Biological Union of St. Luke: Discorsi e radiomessaggi di Pio XII, VI, 191-192; to Italian Association of Catholic Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 835-854; to the association known as the Family Campaign, and other family associations: AAS 43 (1951), 857-859; to 7th congress of International Society of Hematology: AAS 50 (1958), 734-735 [TPS VI, 394-395]; John XXIII, encyc.letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 446-447 [TPS VII, 330-331]; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos. 47-52: AAS 58 (1966), 1067-1074 [TPS XI, 289-295]; Code of Canon Law, canons 1067, 1068 §1, canon 1076, §§1-2
.)

None of those "predecessors" predate Vatican I.

Mt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Natural law, might also declare the will of God, but He has spoken more clearly in revelation: why would one want to read tea leaves when you can read a straight forward letter? Orthodoxy looks to the telos, the End, for moral theology and order nature towards that goal, not the other way around.

The only statement predating Vatican I HV cites here comes from the catechism of Trent

Quote
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS SACRAMENT
As it is the duty of the pastor to seek the holiness and perfection of the faithful,.
...
quoted in full there.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on March 10, 2011, 02:28:51 PM
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

18. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices -- amplified by the modern means of propaganda -- which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction",22 yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

In defending conjugal morals in their integral wholeness, the Church knows that she contributes towards the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of man and wife. Faithful to both the teaching and the example of the Savior, she shows herself to be the sincere and disinterested friend of men, whom she wishes to help, even during their earthly sojourn, "to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father of all men."23

19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, we did not strengthen them in the path of honest regulation of birth, even amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot have a different conduct towards men than that of the Redeemer: She knows their weaknesses, has compassion on the crowd, receives sinners; but she cannot renounce the teaching of the law which is, in reality, that law proper to a human life restored to its original truth and conducted by the spirit of God.24

20. The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation. And indeed, like all great beneficent realities, it demands serious engagement and much effort, individual, family and social effort. More than that, it would not be practicable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men. Yet, to anyone who reflects well, it cannot but be clear that such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Master on March 10, 2011, 10:31:39 PM
LOL well someone should read what the pope has recently said on this topic... apparently contraception is ok for male prostitutes. but the 'infallible one' forgot that not long before he was condemning all uses of contraception. something really doesn't add up LOL
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 10, 2011, 10:47:28 PM
LOL well someone should read what the pope has recently said on this topic... apparently contraception is ok for male prostitutes. but the 'infallible one' forgot that not long before he was condemning all uses of contraception. something really doesn't add up LOL

I was told that a Catholic male prostitute may use a condom when he is working with a male client, but he may not use a condom for a female client.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 11:40:37 PM
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

18. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices -- amplified by the modern means of propaganda -- which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction",22 yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

In defending conjugal morals in their integral wholeness, the Church knows that she contributes towards the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of man and wife. Faithful to both the teaching and the example of the Savior, she shows herself to be the sincere and disinterested friend of men, whom she wishes to help, even during their earthly sojourn, "to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father of all men."23

19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, we did not strengthen them in the path of honest regulation of birth, even amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot have a different conduct towards men than that of the Redeemer: She knows their weaknesses, has compassion on the crowd, receives sinners; but she cannot renounce the teaching of the law which is, in reality, that law proper to a human life restored to its original truth and conducted by the spirit of God.24

20. The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation. And indeed, like all great beneficent realities, it demands serious engagement and much effort, individual, family and social effort. More than that, it would not be practicable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men. Yet, to anyone who reflects well, it cannot but be clear that such efforts ennoble man and are beneficial to the human community.
Well, let's see what Pope Paul of Rome (or Card. Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II of Rome, co-author of the adopted Minority Report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control) means by "divine law," the revealed or the natural.

Going through and putting in red that teaching on marriage/child-bearing/rearing which the Vatican based (or attempted to base) on Revelation, general appeals to authority based on revelation (but not on point on married life) in blue, and in bold those pronouncements based on Natural Law.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Quote
LATIN TEXT: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 60 (1968), 481-503.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The Pope Speaks, 13 (Fall. 1969), 329-46.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
HUMANAE VITAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI
TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS
THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE,
TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL,
ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

Honored Brothers and Dear Sons,
Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.

The fulfillment of this duty has always posed problems to the conscience of married people, but the recent course of human society and the concomitant changes have provoked new questions.
The Church cannot ignore these questions, for they concern matters intimately connected with the life and happiness of human beings.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 11:41:16 PM
Quote
I.
PROBLEM AND COMPETENCY
OF THE MAGISTERIUM

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.



Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 10, 2011, 11:44:59 PM
Quote
New Questions

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on March 16, 2011, 03:36:16 AM
Not on contraception (except that the Vatican links them), but as an example of disordered thinking that Natural Law engenders:
Quote
Yet, from the logic of divine charity and, in particular, the theology of the sacrament of marriage, the Church's teaching about the gravity of masturbation makes perfect sense. Indeed, I would note that it can (not must, but can) be argued that it is, in fact, graver than adultery. After all, which sin -- adultery or masturbation -- at least involves the disordered love of another person and so participates, to that degree, in divine love (albeit, I repeat, in a radically disordered way)? Answer: adultery. With masturbation, even disordered love of another person is totally excluded. It is a much more purely selfish sin, reducing the core act of marriage to something ordered completely toward one's own appetite with no love for any other human being involved at all.
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/in-which-we-deal-with-a-delicate-subject.html
The author of this nonsense seems unaware that HV also condemns mutual masturbation with your spouse.  Most spouses, given the horrendous choice of their spouse engaging in intercourse with a third party or their spouse masturbating with a third party, would most probably choose the latter.  Can't tell what the author would do with that fact.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: chrevbel on March 16, 2011, 02:23:31 PM
"But sweetie, it was divine love.  Radically disordered, yes; but divine!"

Can't see that excuse working for me, but maybe it's just me.

What rubbish.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 27, 2011, 06:13:26 PM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 27, 2011, 06:25:11 PM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 27, 2011, 06:28:52 PM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
I wrote it for a project that I am doing for my course in Natural Law and Life Issues. The blog will be up and fully functional by Wednesday evening. In the mean time I will cite the source.... me.  :)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 27, 2011, 06:49:19 PM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
I wrote it for a project that I am doing for my course in Natural Law and Life Issues. The blog will be up and fully functional by Wednesday evening. In the mean time I will cite the source.... me.  :)
+ Sic papistus dixit. November 27, 2011.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 27, 2011, 06:55:59 PM
If one wants to get a good grasp of the Natural Law, I also suggest reading Aquinas entire Treaties on law:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm)

You'll have to scroll down to the section on "law". It includes information on Law in General, Eternal Law, Natural Law, Human Law, and Divine Law
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on November 27, 2011, 10:15:52 PM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
I wrote it for a project that I am doing for my course in Natural Law and Life Issues. The blog will be up and fully functional by Wednesday evening. In the mean time I will cite the source.... me.  :)

That's very nicely done.

Don't let Professor Assertion bother you.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 28, 2011, 10:36:18 AM

What Natural Law is Not
   When one surveys modern discussion on the ethical theory of Natural Law, one will come across an astounding fact. The concept of Natural Law is grossly misunderstood by many people, including some who are educated concerning philosophical and theological issues. One casual example can be found here at a popular Eastern Orthodox forum: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.225.html

At post 255, one Eastern Orthodox Priest states,
“The 'Natural Law' is a tricky thing. We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral sex, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another. It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and persuade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.”


His argument takes the form of a sort of a reductio ad absurdum, where one follows the logic of an argument to a ridiculous conclusion, in order demonstrate the absurdity of the argument. Basically, this priest is suggesting that if one looks to the natural or intended purposes of sexuality, one finds that the oral and anal sex are contrary to such goals. Thus, in animals, if they engage in such things, then they are guilty of morally depraved actions. Of course the conclusion is absurd because animals are never held to be morally responsible for their actions. For this reason, the priest rejects Natural Law theory as a faulty in its foundations.
However, he does not reach this erroneous position because there is a defect in Natural Law theory. Rather, its because his argument contains a an implied premise that is false. That premise is that man and animals relate to God's ordering of reality in the same way. This is incorrect. Animals participate in the Eternal Law of God in a lesser way when compared to man. As Aquinas states, “Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident for itself and for others.”, The manner in which man partakes of the Eternal Law of God, is in that he can make rational decisions with regard to such a rule, and thus, his actions take the form of moral acts. As a result, when man acts contrary to this order, he can be said to be guilty of sin or moral defect. Animals, on the other hand, because they do not possess the power of reason, cannot be held responsible for their actions. Thus, everything they do is the result of of instinct for aimed towards survival. True, some actions of animals may not be the result of the direct will of God in through his Eternal Law, and, for this reason might be viewed by man as somewhat distasteful. Yet, such acts might be considered matters of defect in the material order due its limited nature. In any case, the lesson that can be drawn from this matter is that the Natural Law is not simply a teleological code of conduct intended for all created beings. Rather, it is “the rational creature's participation of the eternal law”.

Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
I wrote it for a project that I am doing for my course in Natural Law and Life Issues. The blog will be up and fully functional by Wednesday evening. In the mean time I will cite the source.... me.  :)

That's very nicely done.

Don't let Professor Assertion bother you.
Thanks Maria. I'm not sure why Izzy sees this as an assertion. I cite Aquinas as evidence for my position. What is more, all of the reasoning in my posts is based on Thomistic thought. I think Izzy needs to realize that I have spent the entire semester studying Thomistic Natural Law theory and this all comes my studies of the Summa Theolgiae.
In any case, Maria, thanks for your support.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2011, 12:00:39 PM
This seems to be quoted from somewhere, but where?
I wrote it for a project that I am doing for my course in Natural Law and Life Issues. The blog will be up and fully functional by Wednesday evening. In the mean time I will cite the source.... me.  :)

That's very nicely done.

Don't let Professor Assertion bother you.
Professor Assertion is free to do anything he wants on his blog, with sister Assertion doing the cheerleading.
Further on in this conversation, at post number two-hundred sixty five, another Eastern Orthodox posters mocks the philosophy of Natural law, stating, “You're the ones basing your 'morality' on what happens in nature. Not us.” He, thus, charges Natural Law philosophers with holding the particularly grave error that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good. Given this view of Natural Law, just about any grave crime can be justified. For example, it is often suggested that because animals sometimes engage in what appear to be homosexual acts, that they then must be “natural and are morally justified”. Another example is the sexual impulse in man. It can be argued, via this particular view of Natural Law, that sex is “natural” and the desire to have sex with many people is equally “natural”; therefore, one should conclude that fornication and adultery are morally justified acts. As result of such thinking, one would have to adopt the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. Consequently, the  Eastern Orthodox poster in this forum believes that a Natural Law philosophy is entirely untenable.
However, as in the case of the Priest's reasoning discussed above, this poster is also guilty of faulty thinking. He has engaged in the material fallacy known as “equivocation”. The terms “natural” does not mean the same thing in this posters argument as it does in Thomistic Natural Law theory. In the former case, naturally merely means what comes easily or what happens in the natural world. However, in the case Natural Law, “natural” refers to the fact that the moral law can be know by means of natural reason, apart from supernatural revelation. For this reason, Aquinas calls it “the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil”. What is more, it is called “natural” because “according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order and precepts of natural law.”Or, in other words, the natural law ethics, which are not determined by the desires that come most easily to man, are determined by the objective inclinations or purposes of man's nature.
Thanks Maria. I'm not sure why Izzy

Who?
sees this as an assertion. I cite Aquinas as evidence for my position.
You also fail to cite the evidence for the position you are trying to dismiss as "faulty thinking."  Shaving just the upper layer off that pearl, you then complain that it doesn't shine.  Some complained about cherry picking to make some whine
You didn't quote the rest of what I said. Nice try Father.

As for Orthodox#265, Thomism, the foreign irritant that caused that pearl to grow, was the link (I have edited out the more explicit stuff (and it is explicit, if forensic) and tried to leave just an idea of what his "point" is):
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#10
Quote
10. Refutation of Examples of These Errors
There are numerous moral theologians who teach this same set of errors. In most cases, they are merely repeating what they learned from other theologians; it is not their own original work. This set of errors has gradually arisen over the course of many years.
a. Christopher West
....
There are several errors in the above quote. First, an appeal to intention is made, as if good intentions could justify an act that is intrinsically evil. The claim is made that 'sincere efforts,' and a 'loving' intention, and her own desires contribute to the justification of an unnatural sexual act [stimulation of the wife other than penetration]. But this claim, that good intention makes the act moral, is contradicted by the definitive teaching of the Church:
"If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).
Next, West rhetorically redefines the unnatural sexual act...an act that is intrinsically evil and always immoral, regardless of circumstance, or context, or intention. Intrinsically evil acts are evil in and of themselves, regardless of anything and everything else; nothing at all can make an inherently immoral act moral. The only moral choice is to refrain from doing the intrinsically evil act.
He then goes on to claim that such an act is not "inherently...since it is within the context of a completed act of intercourse." Elsewhere in his writings, West himself rejects the idea that a married couple can commit completed unnatural sexual acts on each other. But in this case, the act itself has not changed. The entire unnatural sexual act is present, from stimulation to climax. So, in fact, the act is inherently masturbatory.
His main justification for the claim that the husband can commit such an act on his wife is that this act occurs "within the context" of an act of natural marital relations. Yet the Pope definitively rejected the idea that a number of sexual acts, some open to life and some not open to life, can be justified as a set: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). And the Catechism specifically states that circumstances or context cannot justify intrinsically evil acts:
"There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
"It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1755-1756).
Therefore, the position taken by Christopher West on this point of marital sexual ethics is in clear and direct contradiction to definitive Church teaching. In the same section of his book, after approving of the unnatural sexual act of a husband...his wife, West gives his approval to oral and anal sexual acts, before or after natural marital relations.
"…but it's not inherently wrong...so long as it's within the context of a completed act of intercourse…. Furthermore, while there's nothing wrong per se with...such expressions require the greatest degree of purity and reverence…." (West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, p. 93).
West goes on to say that..."as a form of foreplay" is to be avoided, but it is not "absolutely and in every case immoral." (West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, p. 94). This rhetorical redefinition of unnatural sexual acts as 'foreplay' or 'stimulation' is like a criminal who changes his name and identity in order to escape from justice.
Again, West makes an appeal to intention as a partial justification for intrinsically evil sexual acts, as if the alleged "purity and reverence" of the spouses during such acts somehow justifies intrinsically evil acts. Here West ignores, and even openly contradicts, the teaching of the Church that intention cannot justify intrinsically evil acts. West states that one unnatural sexual act or another is not 'inherently wrong' or not 'wrong per se' or not 'absolutely and in every case immoral'. Such phrasings are an oblique reference to a theological term he generally avoids: "intrinsically evil." The use of such terminology might call to the reader's mind the teachings of the Catechism, and Humanae Vitae, and Veritatis Splendor, which directly contradict what West asserts.
In addition to rhetorical arguments, West's main justification for the claim that unnatural sexual acts can morally be performed within marriage is two-fold. On the one hand, he states that an incomplete unnatural sexual act prior to natural marital relations is merely foreplay. This baseless claim is refuted by the understanding (explained above) that an incomplete sexual act is still a sexual act, and that an incomplete intrinsically evil act is still an intrinsically evil act, and that each sexual act must be evaluated as to its morality on its own. A partial sexual act, one that lacks both the unitive and procreative meanings, cannot be justified by combination with a completed act of natural marital relations open to life. No immoral act can be justified by combining it with a moral act.
On the other hand, West also states that a completed act of unnatural sexual relations is justified by the context of the act. So an intrinsically evil sexual act by itself is immoral, as West elsewhere admits, but if it occurs before or after an act of natural marital relations, it is said to be justified. Such a theological position contradicts the teaching of the Church that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). It also contradicts the teaching of the Catechism, which in this case is merely a statement of the constant teaching of the Church, that intrinsically evil acts are not justified by circumstance or intention. The Church teaches that sexual acts lacking in either or both the unitive and procreative meanings are intrinsically evil, and also that the context of an intrinsically evil act cannot justify that act. West's position is indefensible, as it is in essence a rejection of moral absolutes in the area of marital sexual ethics.
"An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 104).
It should be noted that, on numerous other points of sexual ethics, West takes the correct position and defends Church teaching with some eloquence. His failure to take the correct position on this point is an indication of how much he is influenced by the writings of other moral theologians, and of the weakness of his understanding of the fundamentals of moral theology.
b. Fr. Vincent Serpa
On the Catholic Answers website, at forums.catholic.com, on a section of the site where Catholics write in to receive answers from either a priest or an apologist, Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. gives the following answer: "....is allowed as foreplay-but it does differ from other such forms because it is so unsanitary." In another answer, Fr. Serpa asserts that..."would be allowed as foreplay only". Other apologists on the same website have answered similarly.
To the contrary, intrinsically evil acts are never moral. The intention to use such an act as foreplay does not justify the act. The circumstance in which an intrinsically evil unnatural sexual act occurs before, during, or after an act of natural marital relations does not justify the intrinsically evil act. Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by circumstance or intention. Intrinsically evil acts are never justifiable. Renaming an unnatural sexual act as 'foreplay' does not justify the act; such acts remain substantially the same type of act, regardless of their intended purpose as foreplay, and regardless of whether or not they are completed. The claim that an intrinsically evil sexual act is permitted because it has a particular intended purpose (foreplay, i.e. to prepare for an act of natural marital relations) cannot justify the act. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of anything else, and each sexual act must have both the true unitive and the true procreative meanings in full.
c. Fr. Vincent Genovesi, S.J.
"According to the Church's traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek....by means of....but such activity should not be continued to the point of…On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to...a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church's teaching, to seek and achieve...by other means." (Fr. Vincent Genovesi, S.J., In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality, p. 242-43).
The claim that this error is "the Church's traditional teaching" is unsupportable, especially given the quotes presented above from Veritatis Splendor, Humanae Vitae, and the Catechism. Notice that this priest-theologian makes a series of claims with no theological argument, nor any quotes from magisterial documents, to support the claims. He states that these ideas are "according to the Church's teaching," but actually these are merely the opinions of some moral theologians.
As with other theologians, Fr. Genovesi promotes the erroneous view that an unnatural sexual act which lacks orgasm is therefore not a sexual act at all. He speaks as if such incomplete unnatural sexual acts have no morality of their own, as if these acts were above or outside of the moral law. In the first case that he presents, the supposed justification for the act is that the unnatural sexual act is not continued to completion. But in the second case, he even justifies an unnatural sexual act with completion, on the grounds that "some wives need reassurance." Such rhetorical arguments are common in theological tracts on this subject.
But the teaching of the Church is absolutely clear on this point. A husband cannot morally perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife, even in the circumstance of an immediately prior act of natural marital relations, in which the husband reached...and the wife did not. He cannot perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife, nor can she perform an unnatural sexual act on herself, even immediately after natural marital relations. The prior circumstance of an act of natural marital relations, in which he climaxes and she does not, is unable to justify the subsequent unnatural sexual act. No circumstance whatsoever can justify an intrinsically evil act. That which is inherently evil cannot become good by means of intention or circumstance.
Sexual acts are only moral if they contain both the unitive and procreative meanings; all other sexual acts are intrinsically evil. And intrinsically evil acts cannot be justified based on circumstance or context, such as the circumstance whereby an unnatural sexual act follows an act of natural marital relations, nor can intrinsically evil acts be justified by any intention, such as the intention to reassure the wife. Thus, seeking and achieving...by any means other than natural marital relations is intrinsically evil and always objectively gravely immoral.
d. Fr. Joe Jenkins
"...is frowned upon, however, if it is a component of foreplay that makes possible sexual intercourse, and the...are not misdirected, moralists would make an allowance for it. Similarly, while...is usually deemed sinful; even authorities from the old manual tradition contended that a man could...his wife immediately at the end...so that she could achieve...-completing an element of the initial act. Of course, in both these cases there still exists an openness to life and a possibility of conception." (Fr. Joe Jenkins, Church of the Holy Spirit, Washington D.C., http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com)
There are twelve theological errors in the above three sentences. First,..., as well as any type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation and of true union, is intrinsically evil and always objectively gravely immoral. Calling an intrinsically evil act 'frowned upon' implies that it is not always immoral and not gravely immoral.
Second, unnatural sexual acts are not properly referred to as foreplay. Natural marital relations is a part of the Sacrament of holy Matrimony; it consummates the Sacrament in a way that no other act can do. Thus, it is not possible for licit foreplay prior to natural marital relations to include unnatural sexual acts. Such acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings and are therefore opposed to all that is good within marriage and the marital act. The marital act symbolizes, expresses, and summarizes the entire Marriage, which is blessed as a Sacrament of grace by God. Marriage is good because it is unitive and procreative and a source of grace. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be a licit means to the end of natural marital relations, because the former is intrinsically evil and the latter is part of a Sacrament. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be a source of grace.
Third...does not make natural marital relations possible. Fourth, in any area of morality, each act must be evaluated as to its morality on its own. No one can justify an act, which by itself is gravely immoral, by combining that act with other acts. The marital sexual ethics is not an exception to the moral law.
Fifth, natural marital relations is not properly understood as the mere proper direction of semen. Such a reduction of the marital act detracts from the true and full meaning of this unitive and procreative act. The unitive meaning is not merely a physical union of body parts, but a union of two whole persons within marriage; the procreative meaning is not merely the conception of new life, but the union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and as father and mother, for the sake of the procreation and nurturing of children, within the family. The whole of the marital act, not merely its conclusion, symbolizes and expresses this great union.
Sixth, no one can licitly make an allowance for an intrinsically evil act. Such acts are always immoral, regardless of circumstance or intention. Seventh,...is intrinsically evil and always objectively gravely immoral; its morality is not correctly described as 'usually deemed sinful.'
Eighth, the term 'authorities from the old manual tradition' is essentially meaningless; it is the teaching of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium that is the basis for the Catholic faith, not the opinions of theologians from a particular school of thought. Ninth, the act described as a husband...his wife is...(manipulative sex), which is an intrinsically evil sexual act. This kind of sexual act offers neither the unitive nor the procreative meanings, and so it is intrinsically evil and always immoral.
Tenth, when an act of natural marital relations occurs prior to an unnatural sexual act, the latter cannot be justified by the former. For each and every marital act must be open to life. And the intrinsically evil act of unnatural sexual relations cannot be justified by any circumstance or intention, not even the circumstance of a prior act of natural marital relations. There is no area of morality in which an evil act becomes good by being preceded by a good act.
Eleventh, an act of....after natural marital relations does not offer the completion of "an element of the initial act." The so-called initial act is natural marital relations, which is an essential element of the Sacrament of Marriage; the Sacrament of Marriage is not consummated and does not exist without natural marital relations. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be considered to be an element of natural marital relations, because then unnatural sexual acts would be a part of the Sacrament of Marriage. Even the theologians who promote these errors will at least admit that unnatural sexual acts are, by themselves, intrinsically evil. So how can an act, which by itself is a grave offense against God, become a part of the holy Sacrament of Marriage merely by being done in closer proximity of time and place to an act of natural marital relations? It cannot. Unnatural sexual acts lack both the unitive and the procreative meanings, which are essential to make sexual relations a part of this Sacrament of grace, rather than an act that is offensive to God. Proximity of time and place between an intrinsically evil act and a moral act does not give the former the moral value of the latter.
Twelfth, it is not true that "in both these cases there still exists an openness to life and a possibility of conception." The unnatural sexual acts are unnatural precisely because they are neither truly unitive nor procreative. And the fact that an act of natural marital relations open to life occurs before or after such acts does not justify them, nor does it make them open to life in and of themselves. For Humanae Vitae clearly teaches that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). And in all areas of morality, each act must be judged as to its morality on its own. Unnatural sexual acts cannot borrow openness to life from a prior or subsequent act of natural marital relations, nor can they borrow the true union that only occurs in natural marital relations open to life. The idea that, within a set of sexual acts, it is only the totality of the set of acts which must be open to life was an idea decisively rejected by Humanae Vitae. This more recent version of the principle of totality narrows the scope of the acts encompassed by totality, but the fundamental idea remains the same.
e. Rev. Nicholas Halligan, O.P.
"Merely to touch or to penetrate....(mouth or other part) without danger of pollution, or to begin intercourse in such manner with the intention of consummating or completing it in the...., is probably not more than a slight sin; it is no sin at all if it is a necessary means in the individual case…. Although a woman is not obliged to do so, she may immediately after her husband's....or immediately after his withdrawal....obtain her own complete satisfaction through her own or her spouse's efforts performed by means of touches or in some other manner…. there is no serious sin if a woman seeks her own complete satisfaction before the....of the husband but at least after the latter's..... There would be no sin at all if there were good reason for doing so." (Rev. Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Ministry of the Celebration of the Sacraments, Volume 3, Sacraments of Community and Renewal, p. 199).
Notice that this priest-theologian give no theological argument or explanation for his assertions. He merely states that one act or another is a 'slight sin' or not a sin at all.
When the Pope teaches under papal infallibility, declaring, pronouncing, and defining a dogma of the Catholic Faith which is required belief for the Universal Church, he does not have to give a theological explanation to accompany the infallible definition. But it is generally the case that the Pope does give such an explanation, going on at some length about support for the dogma in Tradition, and in Scripture, and in previous teachings of the Magisterium. But some theologians today have placed themselves, in effect, above the Pope, above Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium. They no longer feel the need to offer any kind of theological argument to support their assertions. When they are alone with God at the particular judgment, they will have no excuses.
Since we have no "definitive teaching" that any of the documents he cites are "ex cathedra," this paragraph both demonstrates the uselessness of that dogma and the positions he is taking here.
Quote
Some of the faithful, impressed by either the eloquent expression of these assertions or by the scholarly credentials of certain theologians, merely accept whatever the particular theologian that they favor says. Worse yet, some of the faithful (or unfaithful, as the case may be) seek out whichever theologians are asserting the opinions that they prefer, and then they claim their own opinions are thereby justified. Some theologians have become like politicians, bending their stated opinions to fit whatever is the most popular point of view. These theologians and their listeners deserve each other. But when each one stands before God at the particular judgment, they will not be able to excuse their own sins by referring to the opinions of others. Each and every act of their life will be judged on its own merits.
Now consider Halligan's assertion that an incomplete unnatural sexual act, done with the intention of subsequent natural marital relations, "is probably not more than a slight sin; it is no sin at all if it is a necessary means." To the contrary, the Humanae Vitae teaches that sexual acts which lack the unitive or procreative meanings are "intrinsically wrong" (Humanae Vitae, n. 14). The Catechism teaches that intrinsically evil acts are not justified by intention or circumstance. And the Church has always taught that sinful sexual acts are objective mortal sins, because the matter is grave. Therefore, any sexual act that lacks either or both the procreative and unitive meanings is an intrinsically evil act and an objective mortal sin, which cannot be justified by intention or circumstance. A sinful sexual act cannot be "a slight sin," nor can it become no sin at all if it is "a necessary means."
Halligan next asserts that, after natural marital relations, the wife may "obtain her own complete satisfaction through her own or her spouse's efforts performed by means of touches or in some other manner." This phrasing is a euphemistic description of unnatural sexual acts[emphasis added]. Again, any sexual act which lacks either or both the unitive and procreative meanings is intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by circumstance or context, such as by a prior or subsequent act of natural marital relations. Even God cannot make an intrinsically evil act into a moral act. The only moral choice is not to do the intrinsically evil act. The idea is false and absurd, in any area of morality, that an act, which by itself is an intrinsically evil mortal sin, becomes good if it is preceded or followed by a good act.
One wonders how he would explain God's instructions on taking the Promised Land, or His command to Hosea to take a harlot to wife.
Quote
Notice also that, like other moral theologians, Halligan first asserts that unnatural sexual acts are moral when partial and when prior to natural marital relations. But then he justifies unnatural sexual acts when completed and when subsequent to natural marital relations. So it is clear to reason alone that the justification is not really based on the act being incomplete. The claimed justification is merely that the unnatural sexual act occurred about the same time as an act of natural marital relations. Yet Humanae Vitae teaches that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). And this is true in all areas of morality. Each and every act of the will and intellect must be good on its own; no act that is evil on its own becomes good when preceded or followed by a good act. If any theologian tried to make such a claim in any area of morality outside of sexuality, he would be ridiculed. But secular society and human sinfulness are particularly solicitous to protect and defend sexual sins, and so in this area of morality, the rule of the moral law is ignored or distorted.
I would love to see the defense of the Medieval marriages for alliance and inheritance, where marriage was reduced to a treaty.
Quote
Next, Halligan asserts (again, without any theological argument) that the wife may seek "her own complete satisfaction" during natural marital relations. He is not referring to the wife reaching sexual climax as a result of natural marital relations, which would be moral. Rather, he is referring to the wife performing on herself (or the husband performing on his wife) an unnatural sexual act during natural marital relations. For example, if the husband or wife were to perform an act of...during natural marital relations, this is the type of act that he is trying to justify. To the contrary, in all areas of morality, each knowingly chosen act must be moral; one act cannot borrow the morality of another act, even if two acts occur at the same time or one after the other.
Finally, Halligan asserts the following: "There would be no sin at all if there were good reason for doing so." To the contrary, the Catechism teaches the following:
" 'An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention' (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. Praec. 6). The end does not justify the means." (CCC, n. 1759).
Halligan is not the only moral theologian who claims that intention can justify unnatural sexual acts with marriage. It is a common premise within this popular set of errors. To the contrary, the Church teaches that sexual acts which lack the unitive or procreative meanings are intrinsically evil. Such acts cannot be justified by their end or purpose or intention or circumstances or context.
f. John F. Kippley
Kippley's position on this issue is self-contradictory. In one book, he asserts the usual rhetoric on unnatural sexual acts within marriage:
"Foreplay...is not condemned as foreplay to completed genital-genital marital relations, if it is esthetically acceptable to both spouses." (John F. Kippley, Sex And The Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality, p. 45.)
He gives no theological argument here, unless one considers the absurd phrase "if it is esthetically acceptable" to be an argument. In another place, Kippley does give a theological argument, condemning the common idea that a set of sexual acts can be grouped together, so that some acts, which would be immoral on their own, become justified by being part of a larger set.
"Despite centuries of teaching that sexual acts are individually important, the revisionists taught that individual acts were only partial acts. To put the best possible face on this argument, we have to imagine that its proponents had so disciplined their minds and were so pure that it did not occur to them that their argument could be used as a rationalization for adultery as well as contraception. After all, if individual sexual acts are only partial acts that take their morality from the big picture of the marriage as a whole, what is to prevent the traveling spouse from rationalizing that an act of adultery is just a partial act that takes its morality from the most-of-the-time fidelity in the marriage? …
"One has to wonder how even revisionist theoreticians could come up with such a rationalization. It shows that intelligent and well-educated people, encouraged by their think-alike peers, can sometimes get so caught up in their own ivory tower theories that they can come out with things that ordinary faithful people have to call simply stupid.
This is particularly rich, given that most of those cited (including Mr. Conte himself?), up in their ivory tower have only theory, no flesh and blood, flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone, to deal with these issues, and those faithful people do.  And guess who many of them call "stupid."
Quote
It illustrates once again that, where sexuality is concerned, self-interest can cloud one's reasoning, and the revisionist theologians had considerable self-interest at stake. They wanted to be accepted by the contraceptionists both inside and outside the Church, and indeed they were-both before Humanae Vitae and in their years of dissent." (John Kippley, The Argument from Totality, Catholic United for the Faith Blog, http://www.cufblog.org/?p=95)
This latter part of the quote is an excellent explanation as to how such a clearly erroneous view could have become the majority view among moral theologians. And notice that, in the initial part of the quote, Kippley correctly refutes the idea that more than one sexual act can be grouped together. What he apparently fails to realize is that the false argument of 'totality' is essentially the same as the current popular idea that partial or completed unnatural sexual acts are justified by being part of a set of sexual acts which include natural marital relations. The error in this new version of 'the principle of totality' is the essentially same; only the rhetoric has changed.
g. Fr. Ronald Lawler, S.J.
"…the goods of marriage cannot be properly pursued in...activity on the part of married couples. The Church's teaching that natural intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse.
"Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man's seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." (Fr. Ronald Lawler, S.J., et al., Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 164)
Lawler, like most other moral theologians writing on this topic, makes the usual contradictory assertions. First, he correctly asserts that unnatural sexual acts are immoral even within marriage. But then he immediately claims that such acts are justified "as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse". To the contrary, all sexual acts lacking in the unitive or procreative meanings are intrinsically evil, and cannot be justified by circumstance or context. Unnatural sexual acts, which Lawler correctly condemns even within marriage, do not become good and just by being followed by, concurrent with, or preceded by an act of natural marital relations; unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always immoral.
Now consider the last part of the above quote. Moderation and the completion of the marital act are said to justify all other sexual acts, such that "nothing is shameful." Again, in any area of morality, one act cannot justify another act; if a particular act is intrinsically evil, then no intention, circumstance, context, or other act, whether before, during, or after the particular evil act, can justify what is intrinsically evil. Furthermore, it is never true, in the area of sexuality, that "nothing is shameful." That which is in itself shameful remains so, even if followed by an act of natural marital relations, or even if accompanied by good intentions.
Which led to this first layer of the pearl:
His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.
Which the reader can see above:the determinism of the ends reduces all actions to mechanics of agents fulfilling their role.  Mr. Conte I would think would have problems with kissing  :o let alone French kissing  :o. That doesn't make babies, tho many a kiss have led to a baby  :D.

Of course, the Vatican's Amen corner had to chime in
Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination.  
M.
Amen!
causing the shell to add luster to the pearl:
The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.   We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.

Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him

"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." (The Instructor 2.10).
If we were to follow this advice from Saint Gregory, are you suggesting that when the female of our species is not in a fertile period that males should turn to other males as happens in nature?  I know that one enquirer here may agree, at least in broad principle, but I am not sure if the Church would accept that reasoning.
Yet further demonstrating the "Natural Law" of the Scholastics as the grotesque combination of pin-headed (literally) theory with natural philosophy which formed the materialism of the Stoics, something latter documented in full:
I just noticed that we don't have the official (or semi-official, or infallible, or authoritiative-we can't get a straight answer on what exactly is the status of the CCC in the hierarchy of certitude) definition of natural law:
Quote
I. The Natural Moral Law

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597)

1955 The "divine and natural" law (GS 89 # 1) shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. the natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. (St. Augustine, De Trin. 14, 15, 21: PL 42,1052)

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I)

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. (Cicero, Rep. III, 22, 33)
!
Quoting the Stoic as its authority, the Vatican reveals the origin of its "Natural Law."

Quote
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;(Cf. GS 10) it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (St. Augustine, Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678)

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error." (Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005) The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

I note that in the last reference (Humani generis) Pope Pius XII of Rome took a swipe at us existentialists. Oh well. I would like to know how he, the CCC and the rest of the Vatican would distinguish this clinging to Natural Law from the foolishness of the Judaizers of the Galatians.
.

To give another definition:

Quote
the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us

Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Which of course brought more assertions
What a jolly good time you two seem to be having...One of you is fixated on oral sex and the other on anal sex with bulls.

Another good example of why we need to stay away from Orthodoxy on moral grounds!!
which of course was capped with the final luster of this pearl:

You're the ones basing your "morality" on what happens in nature. Not us. And neither of us are as fixated as the likes of your friend Mr. Conte
but since you flung this mud
Another stupid post. We are talking about the metaphysical concept of a nature or physis. We are not talking about the law of the jungle. Geesh.
I had to apply this polish
What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Quote
Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.

The sad little fact is that St. Clement goes in great detail, as does Mr. Conte, into the marital act with the viewpoint of animal husbandary, making a visit to the sperm bank the height of romance.  And because they go into such detail-your Aquinas depending on St. Clement and your friend Mr. Conte following Aquinas-there is no mistake on the iron clad connection between them, forging links that bind your "natural law."  St. Clement cites the "law of the jungle" as you call it as the proof of natural law at work in nature:males should not penetrate females unless the latter are fertile.  To do so is an "unnatural act" "outraging nature."  Or so the foundations of your "natural law" would have it. The Fathers of your action theory leave no room for ANY unitive act without being procreative, as Mr. Conte amply demonstrates.  That, and no theory "that if something happens in nature, then it is “natural”, and what is “natural” is, therefore good," is the correct thinking of Orthodox #265.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 28, 2011, 12:06:15 PM
Izzy, now you are just being dishonest. You say that I don't cite evidence, but I am quoting Aquinas himself. Since he is the one who provided substantial development of the Patristic teaching of Natural Law theory, I think that he is the right guy to quote. I'm not sure how quoting Aquinas is not citing evidence. Why not try honest debate for a change?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2011, 12:15:45 PM
Izzy,
Who?
now you are just being dishonest.
Caveat Lector.
You say that I don't cite evidence, but I am quoting Aquinas himself.
Yes, his usual method: set up a strawman, and then knock him down.

Perry had a cogent observation on Thomism and Orthodoxy, that the problem with Thomism is that it is straight-jacketed with pagan philosophy's depenedence on opposites, and in Orthodoxy there is no opposite to God.  Maybe Aquinas would have made a better Zoroastrian.
Since he is the one who provided substantial development of the Patristic teaching of Natural Law theory, I think that he is the right guy to quote.
Mr. Conte does him justice.
I'm not sure how quoting Aquinas is not citing evidence.
Given that you take your supreme pontiff as infallible because he says he is, I'm not surprised.
Why not try honest debate for a change?
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/20/198abc82-b748-4062-8b5c-f72fe76d6c52.jpg)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 28, 2011, 12:20:41 PM
Izzy,
Who?
now you are just being dishonest.
Caveat Lector.
You say that I don't cite evidence, but I am quoting Aquinas himself.
Yes, his usual method: set up a strawman, and then knock him down.

Perry had a cogent observation on Thomism and Orthodoxy, that the problem with Thomism is that it is straight-jacketed with pagan philosophy's depenedence on opposites, and in Orthodoxy there is no opposite to God.  Maybe Aquinas would have made a better Zoroastrian.
Since he is the one who provided substantial development of the Patristic teaching of Natural Law theory, I think that he is the right guy to quote.
Mr. Conte does him justice.
I'm not sure how quoting Aquinas is not citing evidence.
Given that you take your supreme pontiff as infallible because he says he is, I'm not surprised.
Why not try honest debate for a change?
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/20/198abc82-b748-4062-8b5c-f72fe76d6c52.jpg)
Actually, when I addressed your error concerning Natural Law, it was in order to get rid of the straw man that you keep beating. Natural Law is not an ethic derived from observing what happens in nature. Aquinas teaches no such thing. Thus, if anyone is guilty of building up and attacking a straw man, it is you. Why not approach this debate with some honesty?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2011, 12:40:12 PM
Why not try honest debate for a change?
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/20/198abc82-b748-4062-8b5c-f72fe76d6c52.jpg)
Actually, when I addressed your error concerning Natural Law, it was in order to get rid of the straw man that you keep beating. Natural Law is not an ethic derived from observing what happens in nature. Aquinas teaches no such thing. Thus, if anyone is guilty of building up and attacking a straw man, it is you. Why not approach this debate with some honesty?
I have.  You skipped over Mr. Conte (which necessitated quoting him AT LENGTH) and the foundation of it all-Cicero (according to your CCC) and St. Clement (according to your Humanae Vitae apologists).

Take on Mr. Conte, Ciceor and St. Clement: explain how you can seperate "the unititive aspect" from the "procreative" to justify HV.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
There are four living organs of infallibility in the Catholic Church - (1) Sacred Tradition; (2) a teaching on faith and morals proposed by the Pope ex cathedra; (3) a teaching from an Ecumenical Council on faith and morals; (4) a definitive teaching by the bishops of the world on a matter of faith or morals even while dispersed throughout the world.

Not all statements on faith or morals by the Pope is ex cathedra.

Humanae Vitae is considered infallible by a majority of Catholics on the authority of #1, NOT #2, #3, or #4.

I have to differ.  It is known to all that Humanae Vitae contains not one patristic quote.  It is also known why - because Humanae Vitae is NOT consistent with patristic tradition and any patristic quote would have highlighted that rupture with tradition.
B-U-M-P
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 28, 2011, 12:56:29 PM
What is more, all of the reasoning in my posts is based on Thomistic thought.
So is Mr. Conte's.  Can you explain the difference in results?
I think Izzy
Who?
needs to realize that I have spent the entire semester studying Thomistic Natural Law theory and this all comes my studies of the Summa Theolgiae.
Then can you cite it to show where Mr. Conte is wrong?

I also realize that there should be a preposition between "comes" and "my," but I'm not sure which.  I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.  Or your post.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Papist on November 28, 2011, 03:14:03 PM
What is more, all of the reasoning in my posts is based on Thomistic thought.
So is Mr. Conte's.  Can you explain the difference in results?
I think Izzy
Who?
needs to realize that I have spent the entire semester studying Thomistic Natural Law theory and this all comes my studies of the Summa Theolgiae.
Then can you cite it to show where Mr. Conte is wrong?

I also realize that there should be a preposition between "comes" and "my," but I'm not sure which.  I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.  Or your post.
I'm not address "Mr. Conte". I'm addressing you. You say that Natural Law is based on what we observe in Nature. I say that that is not what Natural Law is. According to Aquinas, Natural Law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (S.T., I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2). Or, in other words, it is the actual knowing of those precepts of God's Eternal Law that are knowable.
All things partake of the Eternal Law, according to Aquinas, "in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends" (S.T., I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2). In Thomisic thought, this means that God governs all things in that he has imposed natures or essences on them. These essences, are determined to be directed toward certain ends. For example, when two hydrogent atoms combine with an oxygen atom, they always produce water. When a male and female cat reproduce, it produces kittens and not puppies. Of course, some substances do not reach these ends because they are interrupted by other lines of causality, this does not violate God's rule over all things since he is even the source of these lines of causality that interrupt one another. Such is the nature of material reality.
Now before you jump up and down and start yelling, "see, see I told you that you determine morality based on what you observe in nature," let me finish. When it comes to substances that are material in nature only, the Eternal Law does not have the quality of a moral rule for them. The concept of Eternal Law, with regard to such substances, has only the quality of causality. Material substances do not have a will that can determine whether or not they achieve or frustrate the natural ends of their natures. Thus, no animal can be held morally accountable for its actions, and observing what animals do or do not do cannot be a measure of human morality.
According to Aquinas, "Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others." (S.T. I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2). You see, rational creatures do not partake in the Eternal Law in the same way as irrational creatures. While irrational creatures act by necessity, rational creatures act by a free and rational will. Thus, they can choose whether or not to follow the objective inclinations or telelogical purposes of their nature. For this reason, because rational creatures participate in the Eternal Law in a manner different than irrational creatures, such a participation is given a different name, i.e. Natural Law. Again, as Aquinas states, "the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (S.T. I-II, Q. 91, Art. 3) Further, because it is a participation by a rational creature that has an intellect and a will, such creatures can be held responsible for their actions, and consequently, these actions can be evaluated on a moral level, whereas those of an irrational creature cannot.
I think where people get most confused with Natural Law, is when, concnering the rational creature, Aquinas states, "Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end." (S.T. I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2). Here some are confused by the term "natural inclination". Some understand it to mean that Natural Law justifies what "comes naturally" or most easily. For example, some see masturbation as quite "natural" because it comes easily. Others see "natural inclination" as that which some scientists have labeled as instincts. Thus, the drive to procreated with many people would be justified under this theory. However, this is most certainly not what Aquinas means by "natural inclination". By "natural inclination" he does not mean man's subjective urges but the objective end and purpose toward which his nature directs him.
For Aquinas, the metaphysical concept of nature or form is wrapped up in the metaphysical concept of final cause, or teleological end. Edward Fesar discusses this in detail in his book "Aquinas: A Beginners Guide". I'll provide citations when I get home later. But in the mean time I will summarize what he has to say. Final Causality is the reason why substances do one thing rather than another. It's the reason why two hydrongen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to make water rather than carbon. In human acts, he shows that we act for ends because if we did not there would be no rational action, no reasonable reason for acting reasonably. Now final causality finds its source in each substance' formal cause. Because a thing has a certain nature, that is why it acts for a particular end. Now this is the intended means of "natural inclination". It is the things objective end. This is why aquinas calls it a "natural inclination to its proper act and end". Notice, it is an inclination to a proper act and end. The fact that it is towards that which is "proper" means that it is objective and not subjective. It flows from the nature of the thing and not from the rational creature's subjective feelings and desires at a given time. Thus, the "natural inclination" of the rational creature is not about what the rational creature feel, but about what is the purpose of its nature.

OH, and btw, you can now post all of your maps.
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: Aindriú on November 28, 2011, 03:28:49 PM
As you see, you're both wrong.

(http://war3.incgamers.com/uploads/MiddleEarthRisk792Kofficial1291674287.w3x-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 29, 2011, 06:52:22 PM
What is more, all of the reasoning in my posts is based on Thomistic thought.
So is Mr. Conte's.  Can you explain the difference in results?
I think Izzy
Who?
needs to realize that I have spent the entire semester studying Thomistic Natural Law theory and this all comes my studies of the Summa Theolgiae.
Then can you cite it to show where Mr. Conte is wrong?

I also realize that there should be a preposition between "comes" and "my," but I'm not sure which.  I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.  Or your post.
I'm not address "Mr. Conte". I'm addressing you. You say that Natural Law is based on what we observe in Nature.
LOL. I say that "Natural Law" is baseless.

Mr. Conte accepts your basis and comes to different conclusions, so your bigger problem is with him. Or do you accept his conclusions?

This is the first faulty basis of your "natural law":based on Aquinas' misinterpretation of what Aristotle observed in nature, and the philosophy he induced from his obervations.  That is the problem with philosophy:rather than functioning as a science like mathematics, it strays into founding schools and taking on an identity as a religion with dogma, the scholastics rivaling Confucianism and Taoism in that.  It is this tradition bound thinking that blinds you from seeing the basis of your "natural law" on observations of nature: you actually think you are seeing something rather than imposing a figment of the imagination passed onto you.
I say that that is not what Natural Law is.
Well, I guess Rome-or rather the Vatican-has spoken.  

"Natural law" in general and on this topic in particular continually begs the question of "what is natural" as it appeals to nature to prove its case, and those who bear the responsibility of introducing it into Christianity (no, it's not St. Paul in Romans) do so in the quote mines that the apologists of HV proffer, e.g.
Quote
Lactantius
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring"
(Divine Institutes, 6:23:18).  
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
And my favorite
Quote
St. Clement of Alexandria Paedagogos 2. 10
Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom we should take as our instructor
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/CONTRACE.TXT
St. Augustine at least had some idea that his idea of the "law of nature," the prelapsidarian world, was not attainable now.
Paradise in antiquity: Jewish and Christian views By Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Guy G. Stroumsa
http://books.google.com/books?id=3m3jtyN_wdMC&pg=PA103&dq=Augustine+natural+law+prelapsarian&hl=en#v=snippet&q=natural%20law%20augustine&f=false
Augustanianism, ever more dependent on philosophy, dispensed with such a distinction, and increasingly conflated the natural right/justice (δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale) of the early philosophers (and St. Paul) and natural law of the Stoics, trying to spiritualize the latter's materialism, hence:
According to Aquinas, Natural Law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (S.T., I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2).
Yes. Aquinas is wrong.

The second faulty basis of your "natural law":based on the philosophical anthropology of man as a rational creature/being.  God did not create man a rational being, but a being with reason.
Or, in other words, it is the actual knowing of those precepts of God's Eternal Law that are knowable.
The third faulty basis of your "natural law":based on the idea that through reason man has an immediate access to true reality. Such access comes only through the theoria/comtemplation of the nous/mind seeing the divine energies at work in the logoi of created beings. Such things do not begin with St. Gregory Palamas, e.g. in the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor:
Union and distinction in the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor By Melchisedec Törönen
http://books.google.com/books?id=kgsxmj6i_uEC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=logoi+created+beings&source=bl&ots=E8GnhSrZ7E&sig=-bos0EobRMccTUhnoeZyBm8CRNw&hl=en#v=onepage&q=logoi%20created%20beings&f=false
The body in St. Maximus the Confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified By Adam G. Cooper
http://books.google.com/books?id=9RjCCA1IaYcC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=logoi+created+beings&source=bl&ots=R3xIYQpxmz&sig=i-gWN4a_SDC5JpRgG6hjTGIOSgM&hl=en#v=onepage&q=logoi%20created%20beings&f=false
The Christocentric cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor By Torstein Tollefsen
http://books.google.com/books?id=1BMB8UWNFLcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=logoi+created+beings&source=bl&ots=MXzrQy-AOI&sig=6UgWwmwfa_nL65iN0GuDzgao6cs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=logoi%20created%20beings&f=false
Even earlier than St. Maximus-St. Evagrius Ponticus, the companion of the Cappadocian Fathers, the Scythian Monks and the Desert Fathers:
Quote
Julia Konstantinovsky - Evagrius Ponticus: contemplation as infinite creation
The contemplation of the inner essences of created beings (the logoi), theoria physike, is foundational to the ethical, spiritual and systemic thought of Evagrius Ponticus. A key message of his paideia is his exhortation to abandon every distraction of life for the exclusive privilege to have leisure to contemplate the world of beings.    The perfection of the art of contemplation is a self-building activity, whereby a new state of self-awareness arises, so that a new ‘Adam’, the perfect gnostikos, the knower is revealed.
The building up of the self in contemplation is effected through the experience of adoration.  The observer begins by entering into inner silence. In this silence one then meditates on the world and beings in it. The eureka moment comes about when the ordinary suddenly reveals itself as light-filled and super-natural. The luminosity present in the ordinary things is reflections of the eternal creative luminous principles of beings (logoi), eternally present in the mind of the Logos. The following antinomy then presents itself to the contemplating human mind: on the one hand, the world of beings is temporary and contingent and on the other, it reveals itself as a replica of an eternal pattern within the eternal God.  Contemplation, then, produces the realisation that the world is in a sense simultaneously temporal and eternal, physical and spiritual, material and immaterial. This revelation transforms its recipient: through it the contemplating self ascends to a superior stage of the true knowledge of beings, God and oneself.  
More paradoxically still, we are told (see Evagrius’ Gnostic Chapters) that man’s contemplation of beings is precisely what God himself did when he created the world.   It is true that even prior to the creative act God, who is the superabundance of vitality and activity, is not devoid of the activity of contemplation. The Logos eternally contemplates the eternal logoi everlastingly contained in him. Yet, Evagrius seems to postulate a logical moment when God’s eternal contemplation enters a new mode turning specifically to fashioning contingent beings. Now Evagrius is very clear that this divine generative act is God’s variation of the theoria physike. There is therefore a close parallel between the contemplation that men do and God’s activity of creative contemplation.   There is a sense in which the two are identical.
http://oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com/2011/07/julia-konstantinovsky-evagrius-ponticus.html
As Lossky sums up nicely in the "Mystical Theology"
Quote
...It is often forgotten that the creation of the world is not a truth of a philosophical order, but rather an article of faith. Ancient philosophy knows nothing of creation in the absolute sense of the word; the demiurge of Plato is not a creator-God, but rather an ordainer of the universe, a craftsman, a fashioner of the kosmos, a word itself implying order and comeliness. 'Being' in Hellenistic thought signifies existence in some ordered manner, the possession of an essence. The demiurge creates substances giving form to amorphous matter which exists eternally and independently of himself as a chaotic and unqualifiable mass, capable of receiving every possible form and quality. In itself, matter is thus non-being, a pure potentiality of being, of becoming something; it is the me on (μη ον), but it is not the ouk on (ουκ ον), which is absolute nothingness. The idea of creation ex nihilo is first found in the Bible (2 Mac. vii, 28) where a mother, urging her son to have courage to undergo martyrdom for the faith, says: Ί beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.' (hoti ek ouk onton epoiesen auta ho theos (ότι εξ ουκ όντων εποίησεν αυτά ο Θεός) according to the Septuagint translation.)  'All creatures are balanced upon the creative word of God, as if upon a bridge of diamond; above them is the abyss of the divine infinitude, below them that of their own nothingness,' says Philaret of Moscow...
...The creation is not a kind of spreading out or infinite diffusion of the Godhead, a spontaneous communication of the energies producing beings in virtue of some necessity of the divine nature— 'the Good diffusing itself by itself of neo-Platonism is not the God of St. Paul who 'calleth those things which be not as though they were' (Rom. iv, 17). The creation is a work of will and not of nature; and it is in this sense that St. John Damascene opposes the creation of the world to the generation of the Word: 'Since,' he says, 'the generation is a work of nature and proceeds from the very substance of God, it must necessarily be that it is eternal and without beginning, otherwise the begetter would undergo a change, and there would be prior God and posterior God: God would develop. With creation, on the other hand, it is a work of the will, and is thus not coeternal with God. For it is not possible that which is brought from not-being into being should be coeternal with that which exists always and without origin.[iii]

We are, therefore, dealing with a work which has had a beginning; and a beginning presupposes a change, the passage from not-being into being. The creature is thus, by virtue of its very origin, something 'Which changes, is liable to pass from one state into another. It has no ontological foundation either in itself (for it is created from nothing), nor in the divine essence, for in the act of creation God was under no necessity of any kind whatever. There is, in fact, nothing in the divine nature which could be the necessary cause of the production of creatures: creation might just as well not exist. God could equally well not have created; creation is a free act of His will, and this free act is the sole foundation of the existence of all beings. The very intention of the divine will, in the act of God's willing it, becomes a fact, and is realized in the immediate existence of a being by the power of the Almighty, who, when in His Wisdom and creative power He desires something, does not leave His will unrealized. And created being, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, is this realization of His will...
...In the book of Genesis God is represented to us as saying: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' (i, 26), as if the Trinity consulted within Itself before creating. 'Counsel' signifies a free and considered act: 'God creates by His thought which immediately becomes a work', according to the same St. John Damascene.[vi] 'God, he says, 'contemplated all things before their existence, formulating them in — His mind; and each being received its existence at a particular moment, according to His eternal thought and will - kata ten theletiken autou achronon ennoian - (κατά την θελητικήν αυτού άχρονον έννοιαν), which is a predestination - proorismos (προορισμός), an image - eikön (εικών) and a model - paradeigma (παράδειγμα).[vii]

The term theletike ennoia (θελητική έννοια) 'thought-will', or, more accurately, 'volitional thought', is very important. It is a perfect expression of the Eastern doctrine of the divine ideas, of the place which the theology of the Eastern Church gives to the ideas of created things in God. The ideas are not, according to this conception, the eternal reasons of creatures contained within the very being of God, determinations of the essence to which created things refer as to their exemplary cause, as in the thought of St. Augustine which later became the common teaching of the whole Western tradition and was more precisely formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. In the thought of the Greek Fathers the divine ideas are more dynamic, intentional in character. Their place is not in the essence, but in 'that which is after the essence', the divine energies: for the ideas are to be identified with the will or wills - thelemata (θελήματα) which determine the different modes according to which created beings participate in the creative energies. It is thus that Dionysius characterizes the 'ideas or models' which are 'the reasons of things which give them substance .......... for it is by them that all things have been determined and are created by the super-substantial God'...
...And if the divine ideas are not the essence of God itself, if they are thus as it were separated from the essence by the will, then it follows that not only the act of creation but also the very thoughts of God Himself can no longer be considered as a necessary determination of His nature and part of the intelligible content of the divine Being. The created universe is thus not seen, as in platonic or platonizing thought, under the pale and attenuated aspect of a poor replica of the Godhead; rather it appears as an entirely new being, as creation fresh from the hands of the God of Genesis 'who saw that it was good', a created universe willed by God and the joy of His Wisdom, 'a harmonious ordinance', 'a marvellously composed hymn to the power of the Almighty', as St. Gregory of Nyssa says.[ix]

The attempt to bring the ideas into the inner being of God necessarily gives an ideal content to the divine essence and places the platonic kosmos noetos (κόσμος νοητός) in it; the consequence of this is to face us with the following alternative, which will be decided according to the view one holds of this ideal world in God: either the created world will be disparaged, and deprived of its original character as the unconditioned work of the creative Wisdom, or else creation will be introduced into the inner life of the Godhead with its ontological roots established within the Trinity itself, as in the so-called sophiological doctrines. In the first case (that of St. Augustine), the divine ideas remain static-unmoving perfections of God; in the second (that of Eastern sophiology) the essence - ousia (ουσία) of God itself becomes dynamic. It is interesting to note that John Scotus Eriugena (whose theological system is a curious amalgam of Eastern and Western elements, a transposition of the doctrines of the Greek fathers upon a basis of Augustinian thought)
  • , represents the divine ideas as creatures, the first created principles by means of which God creates the universe (natura creata creans).


Together with the Easterns, he puts the ideas outside the divine essence, but at the same time he wants to maintain with St. Augustine their substantial character; and so they become the first created essences. Eriugena did not grasp the distinction between the essence and the energies; on this point he remained faithful to Augustinianism, and was therefore unable to identify the ideas with God's creative acts of will.

The ideas or acts of will, which Dionysius calls 'models' - paradeigmata (παραδείγματα), 'predestinations' - proorismoi (προορισμοί) or 'providences' - pronoiai (πρόνοιαι), are not identical with created things. While they are the foundation of everything which is established by the divine will in the simple outpourings or energies, relationships between God and the beings which He creates, the ideas remain nevertheless separate from creatures, as the will of the craftsman remains separate from the work in which it is manifested. The ideas foreordain the different modes of participation in the energies, the unequal statures of the various categories of beings, which are moved by the divine love and respond to it each according to the proportion of its nature. The creation then appears as a hierarchy of real analogies in which, as Dionysius says, 'each order of the hierarchical disposition achieves co-operation with God according to its proper analogy, accomplishing by the grace and power which is given by God that which God possesses by nature and without measure'[xi].

Thus all creatures are called to perfect union with God which is accomplished in the 'synergy', the co-operation of the created wills with the idea-willings of God. The notion of creation in Dionysius is so close to that of deification that it is hard to distinguish between the first state of creatures and their final end, union with God. In fact, because this union, according to Dionysius, presupposes 'co-operation', the agreement of wills and therefore liberty, it is possible to see in the initial state of the created cosmos an unstable perfection in which the fullness of union is not yet achieved and in which created beings have still to grow in love in order to accomplish fully the thought-will of God.

This consideration is developed by St. Maximus, for whom creatures are defined in the first place as beings who are limited,, which is as much as to say (according to St. Maximus) that their end is outside of themselves, that there is something towards which they tend, that they are in a perpetual state of becoming. Wherever there is diversity and multiplicity there is becoming; everything in the created world is in a state of becoming, the intelligible as well as the sensible, and this limitation and this movement of becoming are the domain of the forms of space and time. God alone remains in absolute repose; and His perfect unmovability places him outside space and time. If one attributes movement to Him in His relationship to created being, it is meant that He produces in creatures the love which makes them tend towards Himself, that He draws them to Him, 'desiring to be desired and loving to be loved'

His will for us is a mystery, for the will is a relationship with another, and there is nothing which is 'other' to God: creation ex nihilo is in comprehensible to us. We only know the will of God in so far as it is His relationship to the world which is already created; it is the point of contact between the infinite and the finite, and in this sense the divine 'willings' are the creative ideas of things, the logoi (λόγοι), the 'words'. In spite of the terminological identity, these 'words' have little in common with the logoi spermatikoi (λόγοι σπερματικοί) or 'seminal reasons' of the stoics. Rather they are the 'words' of creation and of providence which are found in Genesis and the Psalms (Ps. cxlvii). Every created thing has its point of contact with the Godhead; and this point of contact is its idea, reason or logos (λόγος) which is at the same time the end towards which it tends. The ideas of individual things are contained within the higher and more general ideas, as are the species within a genus. The whole is contained in the Logos, the second person of the Trinity who is the first principle and the last end of all created things. Here the Logos, God the Word, has the 'economical' emphasis proper to ante-Nicene theology: He is the manifestation of the divine will, for it is by Him that the Father has created all things in the Holy Spirit. When we are examining the nature of created things, seeking to penetrate into the reason of their being, we are led finally to the knowledge of the Word, causal principle and at the same time end of all beings. All things were created by the Logos who is as it were a divine nexus, the threshold from which flow the creative outpourings, the particular logoi (λόγοι) of creatures, and the centre towards which in their turn all created beings tend, as to their final end. For creatures, from the moment of their first condition, are separate from God; and their end and final fulfilment lies in union with Him or deification. Thus the primitive beatitude was not a state of deification, but a condition of order, a perfection of the creature which was ordained and tending towards its end.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/created_being.htm
which of course contrasts with
All things partake of the Eternal Law, according to Aquinas, "in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends" (S.T., I-II, Q. 91, Art. 2). In Thomisic thought, this means that God governs all things in that he has imposed natures or essences on them. These essences, are determined to be directed toward certain ends. For example, when two hydrogent atoms combine with an oxygen atom, they always produce water. When a male and female cat reproduce, it produces kittens and not puppies. Of course, some substances do not reach these ends because they are interrupted by other lines of causality, this does not violate God's rule over all things since he is even the source of these lines of causality that interrupt one another. Such is the nature of material reality.
Such, rather, is the figment of the scholastics' imagination.  Created beings are not means to accomplish principled ends.  Creator meets creation in the divine energies sustaining the embodied logoi, and are thus ends in and of themselves, having their end, telos, in God.

Take in particular your tautology:When a male and female cat reproduce, it produces kittens and not puppies: if they produce puppies, they would not be reproducing, and to reproduce a cat, it takes a male and female cat-two male cats, two female cats, a dog and a cat, two non-cats won't do it.  That, however tells us nothing of their essence:cats are not kitten producing machines (though they do produce kittens, and kittens are only produced with a cat involved) many cats do not produce kittens and yet remain cats, and cats do not become such when they reproduce.  Further, given the mechanism of cat reproduction, with both male and female cats only being able to produce packages of 19 chromosones to pass on, half of the 38 chromosones of feline genetics, again disproves this appeal to reproduction in nature to define "essence" and "ends":the Stoics' "logoi spermatikoi," the ancestor of your "imposed natures of essences determined to be directed toward certain ends," held semen as the essence of an organism, something genetics shows to be patently untenable:how does one have half and essence?  Theological Darwinism, reducing "cathood" to making more cats, tells us nothing of the feline essence and its telos.
Now before you jump up and down and start yelling, "see, see I told you that you determine morality based on what you observe in nature," let me finish. When it comes to substances that are material in nature only,

The only thing not material in nature is God, all else is relative.  Angels, though pure spirit, are in reality as dense as rock to God.
the Eternal Law does not have the quality of a moral rule for them.

then why do you appeal to their example?  You are not making an analogy, you are claiming that they are examples of your "eternal law."
The concept of Eternal Law, with regard to such substances, has only the quality of causality.

did you misspell casuistry?
Material substances do not have a will that can determine whether or not they achieve or frustrate the natural ends of their natures. Thus, no animal can be held morally accountable for its actions, and observing what animals do or do not do cannot be a measure of human morality.
Your great grandfather St. Clement of Alexandria disagrees with you, as do those who passed on and elaborated on his Stoicism in the pedigree of your "natural law."  We are not even at a point where we can get into my disagreement with you:not only do we not have the same goal in mind, we don't even share a starting point.

Call it will or instinct, any one of your female cats will not reproduce with any one of your male cats. And if they did, would that be achieving the natural ends of their natures? I'll pick up here, Lord willing, more to the point of the specific issue here (according to the OP).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: samkim on November 29, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
Wait, so we don't accept natural law?
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: elijahmaria on November 29, 2011, 08:10:28 PM
Wait, so we don't accept natural law?

http://blog.acton.org/archives/14324-review-an-orthodox-christian-natural-law-witness.html

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8076
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: ialmisry on November 29, 2011, 09:26:08 PM
Rather strange choices, given for the positions take:
Wait, so we don't accept natural law?

http://blog.acton.org/archives/14324-review-an-orthodox-christian-natural-law-witness.html

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8076
The latter references something that might be more fruitful to your purpose:HARAKAS, STANLEY S. "The Natural Law Teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church." Greek Orthodox TheologicalReview, Winter 1963-1964, pp. 215-224.
The link itself only has this:
Quote
Law, motive, intent.
Based on the above, ethical reasoning in Orthodoxy is a balanced combination of law, motive, and intent. Moral law is based in large part on the donatum of human nature. For Eastern Orthodoxy, natural law refers primarily to the elementary relationships that are necessary for the constitution and maintenance of human society. For the Fathers of the Church, the Decalogue is an excellent expression of the natural law common to all men (Harakas, 1964). In a similar yet more flexible pattern, there are modes of behavior that are either prescribed or proscribed for the lives of Christians growing in the image and likeness of God toward theosis or full humanity. These positive and negative injunctions are found in the Holy Scriptures, in the writings of the Fathers and in the canons of the Church. For the Orthodox these statements are normative in the sense that they embody the mind of the Church and reflect standards of behavior that are appropriate and fitting for the members of the Church and, potentially, for all human beings growing in the image and likeness of God -for the full realization of personhood.

This first level of ethical direction is saved from legalism and rigid prescriptivism by the fundamental emphasis on love as a motive of action. Grounded thoroughly on a Trinitarian theology that understands the Holy Trinity first as a community of persons united in love, the Church teaches that being God-like means being loving. In general, the commandments - of the moral law are embodiments of loving concern for the welfare of others. Consequently, in most situations the loving action is in conformity with the guidelines provided by the commandments (Harakas, "An Orthodox Christian Approach to the 'New Morality'." Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Spring 1970, pp. 107-139).

Fr. Jensen has even less:
Quote
Theokritoff wrestles with the cosmological and anthropological implications of Orthodox theology as they apply to contemporary concerns about the environment. In so doing she sketches out what I would call a theory of natural law grounded in the Scriptures, the Fathers and the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church. For many outside the Orthodox Church, and for not a few within, the notion that there even is an Orthodox understanding of natural law might come as a surprise. But such tradition exists and while Theokritoff does not use the term, her work is very much a work concerned with natural law.

Following St. Maximus the Confessor, Theokritoff argues that as a “‘bond of unity’ in creation,” humanity’s vocation “is progressively to unite the disparate aspects of the created order, and ultimately to unite the whole with God” (p. 31). For this reason, “It is necessary to accept that human beings are the cause of the world’s plight.” Unlike many in the environmental movement however, the author does not  take this to mean that humanity is a blight or a cancer on the enviroment. Rather she argues “that we are also God’s chosen instruments through which all things are to be brought to fulfillment in Christ” (p. 32).
Title: Re: Contraception & Natural Law
Post by: xariskai on November 30, 2011, 03:56:04 AM
I say that "Natural Law" is baseless.
Baseless or worse.

"I cannot see why man should not be just as cruel as nature" -Adolf Hitler

Natural law theory can in principle justify just about anything one wants it too, as the example of Hilter suggests.

"Nature evolves" has taken a great deal of the wind out of the sails of "purpose"/telos in nature as self-evidencing moral laws via autonomous human reason. Not to mention the collapse of classical foundationalism in philosophy. The Reformers rejected natural law and rather held to natural revelation. Philosophical based theology and/or philosophically based morality, which became staples of the Latin Catholic tradition from the middle ages, have never been of any sort of central import dogmatically or otherwise for Orthodoxy. Father Gregory R. Jensen relates "two contemporary Orthodox theologians—Fr Alexander Schmemann and Vladimir Lossky—seem to reject the idea that natural law has any application in Christian theology since (following ironically enough, an argument which St Augustine, that paragon of Western theology, would have embraced) what is “natural” for human is our state before Adam’s transgression. Now what we know about humanity is profoundly unnatural" (http://palamas.info/?p=522).

"...most ethicists today are skeptical of reliance on natural law. Yet natural law ethics is not without its defenders... theology of the evangelical type has difficulties with this conception. Instead of a universal moral law, which connotes a certain independence from God, it is more biblical to speak of the personal law rooted in the very being of God. Our appeal is not so much to a general moral law as to the living voice of the Lawgiver... There is no revealed morality in the sense of divinely given moral principles that are accessible to natural reason and universally binding" Donald Bloesch, Freedom For Obedience: Evangelical Ethics in Contemporary Times, p. 21.

Arguably it was failure to achieve the inflated claims regarding the capacity of rationalism to create a scientific natural ethic and a natural theology which contributed respectively to the postmodern moral malaise and the Death of God in the West (and/or retreat from the God of the Gaps to the God of the Guts etc.). It is not so easy to get round those like Nietzsche and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who thought Nietzsche did Christendom one of the greatest favors in the history of philosophy by showing the Emperor that is natural law morality has no clothes at the end of the day.

Most contemporary secular thinkers deny the possibility of discovering in nature any reason for restraining natural passions. Atheist James Sanson believes natural law establishes an ethic of self-indulgence. Hugh Hefner defends a natural law ethic of sexual indulgence on the basis of “a sense of connection to nature on this planet.” Peter Singer of Princeton University sees nothing in nature making sex with animals “an offense to our status and dignity as human beings” (Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting,” http://www.Nerve.com).Homosexual advocate Andrew Sullivan argues natural law justifies “a diversity of moral sexual experience and identity” because, “by empirical observation, Homo sapiens is a moderately adulterous species, made up primarily of mildly unfaithful male-female couples with a small minority of same-sex coupling" (Andrew Sullivan, The Conservative Soul (NY: Harper, 2006), p. 97).

Natural law theory itself has "evolved." Arthur Harding, in Origins of the Natural Law Tradition, says “concepts of natural law are almost as varied as are the philosophical systems which have been evolved in the history of Western civilization” (Arthur L. Harding, ed., Origins of Natural Law Tradition, p. v). Daniel O’Connor affirms “various versions of the doctrine differ so much both in their detail and in their philosophical bases that it is very misleading to talk of the theory of natural law" (Daniel John O’Connor, Aquinas and Natural Law (London: Macmillan, 1967), p. 57). Carl C. F. H. Henry affirmed natural law means so many different things to so many different people some have argued natural law has no “precise content” and “changes with an evolving society” (First Things (January 1995): 54-60).

Catholic theologian Charles Curran claims "the concept of natural law as a deductive methodology based on eternal and immutable essences and resulting in specific absolute norms is no longer acceptable to the majority of Catholic moral theologians writing today" (Curran, Charles, "Catholic Moral Theology Today" in New Perpectives in Moral Theology, ed., Charles Curran (Notre Dame: UNDP, 1982), p. 6).

The notion of immutable essences or purposes has completely evaporated with the advent of contemporary paradigms of biology, as biologist/paleontologist Stephen J. Gould explains: "Natural selection may build an organ 'for' a specific function or group of functions. But this 'purpose' need not fully specify the capacity of the organ. Objects designed for definite purposes can, as a result of their structural complexity, perform many other tasks as well... Jury rigging of ordinary components for special functions as confutation of design -not "ideal engineering." (Stephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pp. 57, 20-21). For Gould social and moral norms cannot be derived from nature period "Darwinism compels us to seek meaning elsewhere -and isn't this what art, music, literature, ethical theory, personal struggle... is all about?" (ibid, p. 83). There are evolutionary ethicists who disagree, yet their conclusions are invariably at odds with revealed theology at many points, e.g. the common claim that human beings were biologically designed for unfaithfulness to a single spouse.

Carl F. H. Henry reminds us "proponents of evolutionary theory who stressed the variation of human nature in its supposed stages of development (cf. Poddimattam, Relativity of Natural Law) dealt a serious blow to natural law theory and prepared the way for merely sociological and behavioristic conceptions of law and justice. The Utilitarians and Pragmatists then soon championed law on merely sociological grounds. Today the focus in law and justice centers on specific rights, although the concept of human rights often balloons into vague and vacuous notions like freedom and secularity. Such terms mean different things in different societies. Humanist attempts to deduce human rights simply from the nature of man cannot vindicate such rights as normative. When rights have only pragmatic justification, they soon become postulates that can be easily modified and overturned..." (C. F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol II, p. 423).

Natural law theories and their content are culturally conditioned. "...every attempt to spell out the intellectual content of natural law can be shown to be historically and culturally conditioned. While all people seem to have a moral sense, when they begin articulating what this means, their own cultural and religious background proves to be determinative in their judgments. We need to take seriously this telling criticism of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: 'Is there such a thing as a natural law in the sense that we all 'naturally' reject murder, lies, deceit, wanton cruelty, adulterary, theft, or contempt of parents? As a world traveler and student of ethnology I deny this in the face of certain Christian theological tradition " Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "Jews, Christians, and Gentiles," National Review 35, no. 20 (Oct. 14, 1983), p. 1282).

Jacques Ellul has pointed out that speculative natural law theory -whether that of the Stoics or of Thomas Aquinas -has exerted only limited juridicial influence since in practice juridicial systems pay little if any attention to it. Human beings disagree over the content as well as over the source of law and justice.

In his essay “Pastoral Considerations on Current Problems: Sex, Natural Law and Orthodoxy,” Fr. George Morelli, a licensed Clinical Psychologist and Orthodox priest  (Antiochian) writes "Extra-marital sex is not against the natural law. In science, when we speak of natural we mean what is in nature. In nature, many types of behaviors exist. There are many varieties that we see in our own culture and even more varieties that we can see in cross cultural comparisons. Sociological and anthropological studies lead the way here. Thus monogamy, polygamy, war, murder, chastity, and homosexuality, etc., are all equally lawful in nature because they all exist. For example, we may observe that in a certain culture, homosexual behavior occurs and thereby deviates from what the average individual does. But that neither makes it unnatural nor immoral. The fact that it exists means it is natural, as natural as a sunrise or an earthquake, a flower or a flood." For Fr. George moral norms cannot be based on empirical science, but on the Gospel and the witness of God to the heart alone. “We do not obey a proscription, sexual or otherwise, because it adheres to some so-called “pseudo” natural law. We obey according to the measure of our faith. The measure of our faith will be based on the depth of heart and sincerity of our prayer. It would be well to keep in mind what our holy fathers have taught us – obedience leads to faith and prayer, and in turn, faith and prayer lead to obedience. Being excellent psychologists, the fathers tell us that the main pitfalls to prayer and obedience to God’s will are forgetfulness, ignorance and laziness. Possibly we could sum up these three categories into two: knowledge and perseverance (or persistence). Real knowledge of the Christian spiritual-moral life can only come from the light of faith in accordance with the Gospels and the guidance of the Church. Persistence in seeking the will of God and obedience to His commandments also comes through faith. Obedience itself makes for even greater love, faith and obedience."

Protestant/Reformed author Gary North writes "Natural law theory has always suffered from the dualism of all Greek thought: law vs. change. The unchanging pure logic of Parmenides cannot be reconciled to the constant historical flux of Heraclitus. Greek philosophy never resolved this dualism. No humanist philosophy ever has, either. The problem today is that the tiny handful of natural law theory defenders are trying to breathe life into a long-dead horse. They are wasting precious time. Natural law theory has never worked as the basis of any social order, but after Charles Darwin, the academic community abandoned natural law theory. Darwin taught that nature is impersonal and not normative. There is no universal ethics. There is only a constant struggle for personal survival... If th